Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Next Moves for Team Obama

Hillary Rodham Clinton's convincing victory over Barack Obama Tuesday in West Virginia's Democratic primary virtually ensures that she will remain in the race through the formal end of the nomination fight in June, despite her decidedly long odds of winning her party's nod.

Barack Obama
Barack Obama smiles as he is introduced at a Tuesday town hall meeting at Thorngate Ltd., in Cape Girardeau, Mo. (AP Photo)

So, with at least three weeks left in the nomination fight, Obama must find ways to ensure nothing catastrophic happens in the primary race while also pivoting toward the general election fight to come against John McCain.

McCain has been his party's de facto nominee since mid-February and, since that time, has worked to distance himself from President Bush on several high profile issues -- most notably the handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and how to confront the problem of global warming.

With McCain already several months along in his general election strategy, the pressure for Obama to hit the ground running is heightened. Seeking to compile a list of specific steps Obama could take in the next few months to do just that, The Fix chatted with a wide cross-section of Democratic operatives with a vested interest in seeing Obama strengthen his hand as much as possible in the next few months. Most of the consultants were granted anonymity so that they could speak more freely.

The suggestions -- as well as The Fix's own thoughts -- fell generally into a few broad categories. Agree or disagree with the thoughts listed below? Have your own ideas for the Obama campaign? The comments section is open for business.

* A Middle East Pilgrimage: Obama continues to face questions about his commitment to the Jewish community -- questions he needs to resolve and resolve quickly. For months, Obama has been engaged in largely low profile outreach -- huddling with reporters for Jewish publications, meeting with small groups of Jewish leaders to reassure them and granting a recent interview to The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg to directly address questions about Israel and Hamas among other topics. But a more high profile gesture -- in the form of a trip to Israel as well as Egypt and Jordan -- could help dispense with concerns among Jewish leaders. One Democratic consultant suggested the symbolism of Obama at Yad Vashem would send a far more powerful message about his commitment to the Jewish community than a series of speeches on the issue. (UPDATE, 12:15 pm: The Obama campaign notes that their candidate has already been to Yad Vashem and even provided a picture of the event.)

* Blow the Caps?: Obama has wavered somewhat about whether or not he will participate in the public financing system in the general election. McCain is playing within the system and, if Obama opts out, is likely to use it as a way to show that the Illinois senator says one thing or does another. On the other hand, Obama has demonstrated during the primary season a nearly unlimited fundraising capacity and, if he chooses to take public dollars, he could be unnecessarily handcuffing himself. The news that Obama's finance chair urged its donors to focus on donating and raising hard money rather than funding soft money, 527 organizations seems to suggest Obama has already made his decision in favor of opting out of the system. Either way, the sooner Obama makes his choice the more time the various organizations seeking to help elect him can make their own financial plans.

* Revisit the Rust Belt: While Obama's losses in Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia are not going to keep him from winning the Democratic nomination, his demonstrated struggles in those states to win rural, blue collar, white voters is of concern when it comes to the general election. To a person, the consultants and strategists I spoke with said that Obama should find a way to visit (and then visit again, and then again) states like Pennsylvania and Ohio. One intriguing suggestion: Launch a series of "Ask Barack" forums in which the candidate takes on all comers, seeking to answer questions about issues like religion and patriotism that could be major hurdles in a general election. Another suggestion: Share a meal with working class voters -- maybe via a visit to a workplace at lunchtime.

* Big Rhetoric, Big Ideas: No one who has followed the primaries with even a passing interest would question Obama's unique speech-giving ability. But many within the party worry that Obama is open to attacks that while he gives a good speech he has few specific ideas to back up that rhetoric. To counter that messaging, Obama should take on big issues -- affirmative action, Social Security, education -- with serious policy fixes that map out a path to addressing these long-standing problems. Is it a risk? Yes. But if 2008 is truly a change election, then the country is at a moment where a candidate can prosper by outlining policies to address the big issues of our times.

* Take Five: For the last 18 months (or so), Obama and his top campaign staff have been working nonstop to craft what will go down as one of the biggest upsets in the history of modern primary campaigns. Nick Baldick, who managed John Edwards's presidential campaign in 2004, advocates a break in the action. "Before the next stretch run, they should take a couple of weekends off," said Baldick. In that same vein, several strategists suggested some changes in Obama's inner circle -- not because of problems at the top but rather to ensure that the same level of energy and activity that led to Obama's all-but-certain primary victory is carried on in the general election. One Democratic operative cast such a staff shuffle as a "tune up" rather than an "overhaul."

* Pull Back the Curtain: Unlike congressional races, a vote for president is more relational than transactional. Voters aren't looking for a presidential candidate to deliver on any one specific promise. Rather, they are trying to gauge the measure of the men (or women) who are seeking the nation's highest office. Voters like to feel as though the person they are supporting in the presidential race understands them and their concerns. Obama, to date, has largely flown at 10,000 feet; it might be time to campaign at ground level for a while. Maybe a few more games of basketball with voters, trips to a NASCAR event (or two), a tour of state fairs over the summer. As one Democratic consultant put it: "Look like you're really enjoying being with people, eating corndogs etc. ... You've got a killer smile -- use it!"

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 14, 2008; 5:00 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Clinton: Not Going Anywhere Anytime Soon
Next: What Does It Mean: Miss. Special Election

Comments

Dave:

Sorry for the delay. While I agree with you in the context of a primary election when candidates are fairly close on the issues, but when you break into the general election and the viable choices amount to a dichotomy of ideas such as represented by Obama, Clinton and the Democratic party, and on the other McCain, Bush, and the Neo-conservative agenda, we are forced to pay very strict attention to the issues. Change thus takes on a wider, more fundamental meaning than demeanor or other such traits; it becomes core policies and general direction the nation is taking.

Posted by: Gary K. | May 17, 2008 9:28 PM | Report abuse


He should choose BILL Clinton as his running mate.

Then Hillary could divorce him as she has wanted to for SOOOOOO many years.

Posted by: wardropper | May 16, 2008 8:00 PM | Report abuse


We already know the GOP strategy is to say: "I have a brother who is bigger and richer than you are"

Obama is basically doing what I do to bullies: Ignore them until they cross the line, then punch them in the eye.

Posted by: wardropper | May 16, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

CC: former Sen. Tom Daschle (S.D.) -- one of the many people mentioned as a possible running-mate -- was at his side. So much for that.)

If oBaman picks Daschle as his running-mate, either he is up by 21% (Dukakis was up by only 20% and then lost) or he wants to lose 36 states to MacMan.

Posted by: We Have Iraq War, Also Because Of Daschle | May 16, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Barack needs to explain a lot ... This article is a must read . I am extremely unimpressed with his words and actions so far ..

http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/?page_id=15

Posted by: kty | May 16, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Barack needs to explain a lot . I am a democrat and voted for him from the VA primary but am concerned about his stance on so many foreign policy issues.

Also a friend send me this link so I am sharing it with everyone here

http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/?page_id=15

Posted by: kty | May 16, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

AMERICA ahs lost its resolve to be the leaders of the free world. We are too absorbed in TV shows etc.etc. and think that the rest of the sees our election as some "American Idol" spectacular. Well. I am here to ell you that you are WRONG......DEAD WRONG and someday, if this crap keeps up we will all be DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Keep on playing a game with your libes and the lives of your future generations by going with the guy who has the "playboy apppeal" but no substance. We will all be doomed. America needs MEN...REAL MEN...WOMEN REAL WOMEN.. like those who stood up for America during WWI and WWII and so forth...the people who brought us to were we are today. I am so ANGRY over the fact that we look like a bunch of spineless, gutless people to the rest of the world and that our values are determined by TV shows and the ehtertainment media. Them along comes Obama with his BS. This is the beginning of the "Day After Tomorrow" and the end of a GREAT NATION tha t will ......BE NO MORE!!!!! STAY TUNED.

Posted by: Ebonyflash | May 16, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

First of all I must address all the pinhead idiots out there who are cheering Obama on in the wake of a fight Obama "ficked" with the President of his own country ..FOR POLITICAL GAIN!!!!!!!
In my opinion IT IS A D@#$ SHAME!!!!!!
I must say that eventhough you may disagree with Bush and accent his mistakes, you don't pick fights with your Commander-in Chief. If Obama were in Bush's place and the table were turn Obama would more than likely be crying like a liitle wimp wanting someone. anyone to kiss his boo boo. Bush never mentioned his name...come on. This is the most IGNORANT move Obama has made thus far. You brain dead idiots out there who want this flip-flopper as your next President really need to get a mental health check-up. I read were one lady said (a white female), "every time I watch Obama and hear him speak I have multiple orgasms. WHAT??????????????????? Is this is what this country has sunken to? I tell you what... when we are invaded one of these days by the very countries who HATE US and want to end the American way of life, I hope their first stop will be at the home of the women who made that statement so she can get her MOs from the invading enemy!!!

Posted by: Ebonyflash | May 16, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

From the short version book, by roger wallace, "LITTLE BOOK OPEN".
-
-

1 Ch. 1 w/ 36 vs.
-
2 These now opened, unsealed scriptures. They are now being openly declared, by our true christ (christ Jesus is the angel of all that is and is called god, forever), on the sea and on the land. And they are now being preached, by the body of christ, eternally forever.
-
3 This is seen by the world, as the spiritual feet of our true and wonderful, eternal christ.
-
4 And our true and kind one, who is called christ. He is declaring those things, through the body of his saints, which are the spiritual feet of our christ, and who (christianity) are the anointed pillars of smoke,
-
5 And that smoke proceedeth from god, and is found as eternal truth, that is spoken forever, and is eternally forever, as unsealed and unclosed spiritual true interpretation. That interpretation, is eternally forever true interpretation,
-
6 That is given and found unto us in christ forever, and is spokenly spoken true interpretation. That is given unto us, through the anointed heavenly true fire,
-
7 That is a fiery true interpretation, that cometh from god through christ Jesus, forever. And doth come, as interpretation from unknown tongues, and is seen, as heavenly forever true of me (god), forever.
-
8 Fiery spoken, true prophesy. It is even spoken without the gift of unknown true tongues, and it is even seen, as being eternally forever true of myself (god), in christ, forever.
-
9 And both, eternal fiery true prophesies and secondly: "Eternal true prophesying true interpretations through unknown true tongues. They are found given of myself (god), through christ, as christly true interpretations and true prophesies, that are found in the gift of eternal true salvation,
-
10 That salvation, it is seen and is called: Jesus christ, and doth proceed from me (god), the most high god, and who is eternally forever and ever true.
-
11 And, through christ Jesus forever sure, unsealed and unclosed eternal true interpretations, they are most certainly found in the fallen true earth, as forever true.
-
12 And I roger wallace, I do say, that those things are given unto us forever, as given inspired true interpretations, from our kind, eternal, true christ. And is given unto christ Jesus from our true god forever. And it is true of god, as forever sure of god, and is most surely, forever true in god, forever.
-
13 And eternal, true salvation, it is called christ Jesus, and christ is given from god forever, unto the entire true earth, forever.
-
14 And that true salvation. It is christly and is christ in the eternal true Father, as being eternally forever sure of god forever. And it is given forever true, from god forever,
-
15 And that salvation, it is seen as heavenly forever true in and of god, and is for all of given true eternity, and forever.
--
Roger wallace author of: The god of truth, found at i-proclaim, isbn 978-1-60585-521-9.
-

Posted by: roger wallace | May 16, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Go Hillary!

Posted by: Nineth-Inning | May 16, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

GaryK.
Many people don't pick candidates based only on their positions. A president in particular is chosen in large part by how that person comes across and how we perceive they would lead us. While I think that there are slightly more substantial differences in policy between Clinton and Obama, they are lightyears apart in approach and personality. You may call it political posturing and, indeed you may be right. Only time will tell. But most of the independents that I have talked to and a lot of the liberals I know believe in his stated ability to be a candidate of change. No matter how you cut it, "change" is not something that comes to mind when you think Clinton.

Posted by: Dave! | May 15, 2008 9:56 PM | Report abuse

Dave: "That's funny. I thought one was the candidate of change and a new way of doing politics and the other was the candidate of politics as usual or politics of the past."

As I said: political posturing. In an election, they are literally FORCED to provide an incentive to vote for one over the other--it's just par and parcel to the political game. So they find the minutest difference and exploit it to no end, like the microscopic difference between their health care systems. The change thing is on the same ground. Does any Obama supporter REALLY think that Clinton will continue the policies of GWB? Someone tell me one major policy of GWB that Clinton would support and that Obama would nix.

Posted by: Gary K. | May 15, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Voting for McSane would be an idiotic move, even if Hillary loses, Obama gets my vote

Posted by: A.D | May 15, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

how do i post links here??

Posted by: TMo | May 15, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Gary K. - " They are alike in almost every way. Clinton and Obama, two peas in the same pod."

That's funny. I thought one was the candidate of change and a new way of doing politics and the other was the candidate of politics as usual or politics of the past.

Posted by: Dave! | May 15, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Dan and Matt,

If you guys are ok with putting a man in office who will continue to "stay the course" in Iraq likely resulting in thousands more killed in this senseless war without end, expand the conflict to include Iran, do nothing to expand healthcare to the millions of Americans who are without healthcare, continue the failed economic policis of Pres Bush, put two more Scalia's on the court to replace Ginsburg and Stevens, all because of sour grapes that your candidate (who agrees with Obama on every major issue facing millions of Americans today), well then, you're just plain pathetic.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 8:12 AM | Report abuse

Looking on from Sweden, I have only one problem with Obamas message : energy and climate. For all the messy signals McCain sends out, he at least seems to understand that nuclear energy is a big part of the solution. Obama has bought the CO2 wholesale - and not only opportunistically - and promises to go for more wind, bio and ethanol.
Well, we are a decade in front of you over here on renewables. The evidence is in and it's a NO. Denmark, Germany and the UK have had it and say NO to further non-performing wind parks, littering of landscape, global hunger etc. Finland, as the most well-managed Western country, builds more reactors.
So, for all the praise of science and progress in Obamas message it may all come to nothing if he does not have the courage to admit nrenewables just dont cut it - and readjust his energy policy. The answer is nuclear and hydrogen. Powered by THORIUM - because URANIUM is experiencing the PEAK as is the case with OIL.

Posted by: Elling Disen | May 15, 2008 5:10 AM | Report abuse

Dear Leichtman, there are several Barack's goons on this site. I would urge you to ignore them. Like you, I am a Hillary fan. While I won't be voting for McCain I will also not be voting for Barack Hussein Obama. I want him to lose so Hillary can run again in 4yrs.

Posted by: Matt | May 15, 2008 1:48 AM | Report abuse

Barack's supporters seem to think Hillary's supporters will vote for him anyway. Just wait till November.

Posted by: Dan | May 15, 2008 1:45 AM | Report abuse

You know. There has been a too much rancor over this election process.

I'm an Obama supporter. I like his message and his style. With that said, I think Hillary ran a heck of a campaign and she is a damn good candidate in her own right. Yet, both she and Obama are virtually identical on the issues. They just simply appealed to different demographics. If Obama wins, Clinton will wholeheartedly back him and the party, and vice versa. All the debating, badmouthing, criticism, etc... was all political posturing. Don't be naïve enough to think they really dislike each other. They are alike in almost every way. Clinton and Obama, two peas in the same pod.

Now, we see rightists trying to drive a wedge between the two camps. Why? Because it's the only way they can win. The hyperbolic, insanely ridiculous, and pseudo-factual rhetoric slamming both candidates does not help anyone, but the Rush Limbaughs, and Sean Hannitys of the world who are pissing the PJs in glee over a perceived split in the party.

No matter who wins the nomination, let's not forget that McCain has vowed to nominate pro-life judges, to put our service men and women (I have two family members in the Mid-East as I write) in the war in Iraq for many many more years ("It could be a hundred"), will make the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy permanent and seek an expansion of them, and has taken a litany of other neo-conservative positions.

If you agree with these, why are you even a democrat? And why in the hell would you even consider voting for Clinton or Obama, both who oppose vehemently each of these? Put away the bitterness and vote on the issues. If you planned on voting for Clinton or Obama, and plan to vote for McCain in the general if your candidate doesn't get the nod defies all logic. McCain and both democrats are so far apart on the political continuum and the issues, to rationalize such a position requires a schizophrenic delusion.

Posted by: Gary K. | May 15, 2008 1:19 AM | Report abuse

I'm a big Hillary supporter and I do think she should continue her campaign to June 3. But I realize that Obama will be the nominee and I will vote for him. Voting for John McCain never even crossed my mind. That would be insane! He's a Bush clone. The last thing we need is more wars and more failed economy. I'm sad Hillary lost. But Obama will be a good president. Much better than George W Bush or John McCain!

http://www.Bush-McCainChallenge.com

Posted by: Hillary Supporter | May 15, 2008 12:08 AM | Report abuse

To the person who quotes Obama out of his books, I suggest you remember that quoting people out of context creates a lot of misunderstanding.

I am not black or white and I would very much like to see a united America, not more of this miserable dung slugging between these two racial groups that seems to be one of the less honorable chapters of American history. Please stop.

Posted by: jed | May 14, 2008 11:58 PM | Report abuse

From Dreams of My Father: "I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites."

From Dreams of My Father: "I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother?s race."

From Dreams of My Father: "There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white."

From Dreams of My Father: ; "It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names."

From Dreams of My Father: "I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, Dubois and Mandela."

From Audacity of Hope: "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

Posted by: Obama | May 14, 2008 10:54 PM | Report abuse

Of the many things that Team Obama must focus on a primary goal will be the gritty work of voter registration and GOTV efforts.
The key, as we witnessed in MS-1 is to make sure your supporters are identified and get to the polls.

Posted by: paul94611 | May 14, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

Okay,

Obama's won:

Hawaii - 52.4 points
D.C. - 51.5 points
Idaho - 62.3 points
Alaska - 50.5 points
Georgia - 35.3 points
Nebraska - 35.4 points
Virgin Islands - 82.3 points
Illinois - 31.9 points
Colorado - 34.2 points
Kansas - 48.2 points

Obama has won 21 contests by double digits; Clinton has won 7.

Who's in trouble now?

Posted by: Gary K | May 14, 2008 10:10 PM | Report abuse

41 POINTS in WVA GO HILLARY!!!! Obama is in serious trouble.

Posted by: sharon in va | May 14, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Edwards endorses Obama.

NARAL endorses Obama.

Obama leads in the number of states won.

Obama leads in the popular vote count.

Obama leads in the pledged delgate count.

Obama leads in the Super Delgate count.

Obama leads in campaign contributions.

Obama leads in numbers of donors.

Obama leads in every single measure of a nominee for President.

ITS OVER!

Posted by: Reality | May 14, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

"kreuz, We have a difference of opinion about what our strategic objectives in the region are. I believe that the US absolutely has a very compelling strategic and national security interest in protecting the Straits of Hormuz and the shipping lanes and to protect the world oil supplies. Of course Greenspan was correct, the war is largely about oil and were it not for that, we wouldn't be there."

That is a strategic interest, not a strategic objective. A strategic objective is the overlying purpose for waging a military campaign, from which operational objectives can be set that, when achieve, result in that strategic objective. No one is saying we don't have a role to play in the Middle East, I personally have no qualms with the Carter Doctrine and the notions of fighting wars even for oil. But, when the troops are on the field, they need a specific objecitve to achieve and a path to achieve that objecitve through specific operaitonal and tactical goals- that is how you run a military operation, and that is not being accomplished. "A peaceful and democratic Iraq that is not a threat to its neighbors" is not a strategic obcjective. "The removal of Iraqi combat forces fro the territories of Kuwait" and "theunconditional surrender of the German command" are strategic objectives. It is the job of the President and the civilian leadership to set those objectives, and the military to develop the plan to achieve those objectives. We're not doing that right now.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 14, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

"it is the job of the politicians to be involved throughout the process, especially at the strategic level, and especially when we lack clear strategic objectives."

kreuz, We have a difference of opinion about what our strategic objectives in the region are. I believe that the US absolutely has a very compelling strategic and national security interest in protecting the Straits of Hormuz and the shipping lanes and to protect the world oil supplies. Of course Greenspan was correct, the war is largely about oil and were it not for that, we wouldn't be there.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 14, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Wait, Leichtman. You want gen Yers to appologize for browbeating their parents (Boomers) during this election cycle? Fark that, and fark you too. It's the boomers fault we're in this mess and we, Gens X and Y, are going to be the ones paying our way out. Boomers deserve to hear it from us, and if they know what's good for them, they'll shut up and take it. After all, we're choosing their retirement homes.

And stop bringing up Dukakis, OK? He was running against a sitting VP and won a mere 111 electoral votes. He even lost CA because of the Reagan infulence. Even if BHO were caught with a live boy or dead girl in September, he'd do better than that. Sheesh. It makes you seem a fool.

Posted by: Mason | May 14, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

"And my post that gas demand has dropped significantly has been recently reported by bloomberg, cnbc and other financial networks while pump prices haven't budged, is according to you revolutionary."

That's not what you said, and I'd be very surprised if any of those sources would back-up your idea that American demand for gasoline has no effect on the price of oil.

Also, KHOU in Houston merely reported that the caucuses were chaotic, and blames the Texas Democratic Party for the disorganization. There is no mention of the Obama thuggery that you allege. Maybe it was a different station, or more likely, it never happened.

Try again, Leichtman.

Posted by: bondjedi | May 14, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

I have been volunteering for the Democratic party since helping my Dad when I was 13 over 35 years ago. While I did have to hold my nose several times I in no way can vote for anyone in the GOP with all the harm they have done to this country, especialy these past 8 years.

Shame on anyone who does, they are not true Democtrats.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | May 14, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

that is fine patrick we just don't see eye to eye about that. locally I have not spoken with a single HC supporter here in my precinct who indicates they will be joining you. In fact many of them have already signed up as McCain volunteers and plan on working for him out of state.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 14, 2008 4:19 PM

Leichtman

Since McCain's policies are like night and day from Obama's, you've just proved my point. If you don't get your way you won't play Have a nice day on the playground. The adults in the Democratic party have things to work on, correcting the errors of the last 7.5 years.

Posted by: Dave | May 14, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

that is fine patrick we just don't see eye to eye about that. locally I have not spoken with a single HC supporter here in my precinct who indicates they will be joining you. In fact many of them have already signed up as McCain volunteers and plan on working for him out of state.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 14, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

am tired of both sides saying they speak for the backers of either Hillary or Obama. I voted for Hillary but plan to vote Democrat as do most of my friends. You do not speak for me or them.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | May 14, 2008 4:13 PM

I completly agree. Democrats need to win in November at all cost.

Posted by: Dave | May 14, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

and who can forget how absolutely obnxious you are.

"I saw it on the news, but no one else did." other than Channel 11 CBS local affiliate.

And my post that gas demand has dropped significantly has been recently reported by bloomberg, cnbc and other financial networks while pump prices haven't budged, is according to you revolutionary. Based upon your PHD in economics market manipulation,energy speculators, price gouging,fluxations and seasonal driving and summer gas reformulations have zero to do with your gas prices since according to you as gas demand goes down with less US driving and a US recession(you were aware of that right) that pump prices are now currently plummeting according to your revolutionary economic theories.

bottom line, get lost and stop harrasing!

Posted by: Leichtman | May 14, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

You want to win over HC supporters? TRY acting more civil, and not like you are entitled to our vote which you aren't. The more obnoxious your side acts towards HC supporters the less likely you will find many of us supporting your guy in Nov. Try winning in Nov with 17 million fewer votes.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 14, 2008 4:04 PM
-----------------------------
I am tired of both sides saying they speak for the backers of either Hillary or Obama. I voted for Hillary but plan to vote Democrat as do most of my friends. You do not speak for me or them.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | May 14, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman

OH now it is "personal harrassment" because I replied to your comments and informed you that they were incorrect towards me? You and your ilk are the cause of a large majority of people not liking Clinton supporters because of your inabilty to see the big picture. Are you so use to getting your way that you call foul when someone calls you on your incorrect information? It really is sad that you are so insecure.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 14, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

isn't it interesting that all these people who have never posted here before are former HC supporters?

and you and your new guy think you are bringing the party together with constant rants and insults of HC supporters? It is that obnoxious behavior by his supporters and his refusal to tell them to back off that makes me certain that he is not the right person or has the character to run this country.

"My goal is to insure that the democratic party wins the White House this fall at all cost."

your goal? you think like all other Obama supporters that you can obnoxiously harrass, bully, and intimidate your way into getting our support. Been there with moveon and DFA members who tried that same stunt back last year trying to intimidate their members to do exactly as they say and is "your goal".

You want to win over HC supporters? TRY acting more civil, and not like you are entitled to our vote which you aren't. The more obnoxious your side acts towards HC supporters the less likely you will find many of us supporting your guy in Nov. Try winning in Nov with 17 million fewer votes.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 14, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

"The Texas Trial Lawyers Association are uniformed and ignoring their own political analysis and breathlesly waiting for your brilliant opinions about their specialty since you and your crowd arrogantly know much more about our profession."

Well, you sound genuinely shocked to find out that Hillary Clinton's actual position is different than what you have been led to believe, and different than what you have been telling people.

Again, we're not surprised. Who can forget the tall tales of Obama thuggery, and your lame attempt at proof - "I saw it on the news, but no one else did." Who can forget your revolutionary theory that American demand for gasoline has no effect whatsoever on the price of oil. Who can forget your silence every time Obama rolls up superdelegates in the aftermath of a Clinton "victory." Who can forget the disconnect of your candidate's admonition about heat and the kitchen, while you snivel every time you get put in check here. Who can forget your fantasy campaign insider status.

Try again, Leichtman.

Posted by: bondjedi | May 14, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

dave what are you 5 years old?

incidentally personal harassment of people posting here has been strictly prohibited by the moderator here, so know knock it off!

Posted by: Leichtman | May 14, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

amaikovich: unfortunately the media has created this bandwagon effect I sincerely believe started the night of the Indiana primary and effected superdelegates even when their candidate got trounced by an unprecedent 41%. Seems to me they really don't care if they end up with another Michael Dukakas campaign.

While I probably agree with you about issues, I sincerely feel that Sen Obama is woefully unqualified to be Pres. I have read both his books, read his policy positions and attended his speech last summer in Austin before coming to that conclusion. Tort Litigation is very important to my life, obviously few others here would care about that secondary issue, but I was terribly uncomfortable to listen to his dismissive attitute towards Trial Attorneys and tort claims with Chris Wallace and this from someone who claims to be a friend of the poor and working class. In my mind that is the attitude of corp and insurance company defense firms that I am not about to support especially from someone claiming to be a progressive D. I see nothing Progressive about that attitude, perhaps more of a product from the Chicago law firms they worked for.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 14, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman

It is better to have people think you are and idiot than to open your mouth than prove it.

Posted by: Dave | May 14, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

hey Dave do you happen to know the legal implication of the word extortion or do you think you are just being clever? Apparently as an Obama worshipper anything goes. Grow Up. I am sure I am old enough to have you as an obnoxious child who talks down to his parents.

Apparently the word civility is foreign to you as well. We have heard the B word, old, whithered, evil, a monster, a withered, uneducated, hags,extortionists, Queen, dinosaurs,racists, shrill and I am sure a whole host of ugly words to describe and be yelled at HC,BC, Chelsea and their supporters.

Exactly which of these words are civil to you and advance your candidate?

Grow Up, where did you learn such arrogance?

Posted by: Leichtman | May 14, 2008 3:20 PM

First thing, you need to do is stop assuming. I am the same age as our next President, Barack Obama. Second, I was a Senator Clinton supporter until I came to the conclusion that she is not going to win the nomination. My goal is to insure that the democratic party wins the White House this fall at all cost. If you stop acting like a petulant child because your,(and my former), candidate is not going to be successful I would not tell you to grow up.
The bottom line is that

Posted by: Dave | May 14, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman: Any superdelegate who was swayed because the delay in Indiana election vote counting shouldn't be a superdelegate. And the handful that switched within the last week...well, they are too educated and immersed in Democratic politics to not take all the facts into account.

As to the trial lawyer issue, I may very well agree with you (I'd have to research it.) At the same time, in the hierarchy of issues that will affect my vote--Economy, Iraq, Health, Energy plan--legal proceedings carry far less weight.

Posted by: amaikovich | May 14, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

"I'm sure all the military folks in Iraq wish the politicians would just stay the hell out of it, and let them do their job."

Clauswitz was pretty clear that war is the extension of politics by other means- IOW, it is the job of the politicians to be involved throughout the process, especially at the strategic level, and especially when we lack clear strategic objectives.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 14, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

hey Dave do you happen to know the legal implication of the word extortion or do you think you are just being clever? Apparently as an Obama worshipper anything goes. Grow Up. I am sure I am old enough to have you as an obnoxious child who talks down to his parents.

Apparently the word civility is foreign to you as well. We have heard the B word, old, whithered, evil, a monster, a withered, uneducated, hags,extortionists, Queen, dinosaurs,racists, shrill and I am sure a whole host of ugly words to describe and be yelled at HC,BC, Chelsea and their supporters.

Exactly which of these words are civil to you and advance your candidate?

Grow Up, where did you learn such arrogance?

Posted by: Leichtman | May 14, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

amaikovich: a more timely release in Indiana and an accurate portrayal that she actually won in Indiana which if you were to believe folks like Olberman would lead you and superdelegates to believe she lost Indiana by 10%. Its that psychology that has likely effected some superdelegates, many obviously ignoring the voices of voters in their own states like in Mass. and mindlessly jumping on the bandwagon. Some in places like Ca where they are up for re-election may come to regret that decision when they call for fundraising and volunteers to HC supporters. Senator Rockefeller should be ashamed to remain with Obama when his own state soundly rejected his candidate by 41%, an unheard of deficit.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 14, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

"- Obama overwhelmingly received the vote of the entire military forces - - all branches of the military"

Oh really, Dee? I know a lot of McCain supporters on the military base where I live. And they don't view their military service as a "sentence". Only the loony left would characterize voluntary service to our nation's military as some sort of punishment. It is done with a sense of duty, honor and committment. I'm sure all the military folks in Iraq wish the politicians would just stay the hell out of it, and let them do their job.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 14, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

extortion-Queen, nice choice of words mike.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 14, 2008 2:32 PM

Any words that do not advance Sen Clinton cause in being elected President seems to offend you. Grow up!!!. Oh I am sorry. Was that too mean-spirited? How about a time out?

Posted by: Dave | May 14, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman, we're getting somewhere.

You wrote: "If she had won Indiana by 7% instead of 2% it would not have made much difference in delegates even though she was outspent by 3:1. The night's story could easily have been why can't Obama close out HC even when outspending her 3:1 where there are large numbers of rural voters."

Now I see where you are coming from. That's HRC spin. But to the rest of us--and I dare say the majority of Democrats--the story was she no longer could catch him in delegates regardless of whether she won by a point or lost by a point. No spin, no more campaign rhetoric...just the stark reality of primary election math.

Let's assume that you are correct and she would have gotten better spin that night if Gary's mayor was fair. (I don't think it matters, but we'll assume this point.) Do you really think Senator Clinton would have done even better in WV last night? Maybe even would have won even one more delegate? That is too much of a stretch for me. Bottom line--it didn't make a difference other than making you mad.

Posted by: amaikovich | May 14, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

There's Americans in Iraq, doesn't Obama want their vote, too?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 14, 2008 1:12 PM

----------------------------------------

Obviously, you did do the research or did not hear - - Obama overwhelmingly received the vote of the entire military forces - - all branches of the military

So the answer to your question is yes, he wanted them and received them. All they had to do was to listen to who was going to get them out of that hell they have been sentenced to live in everyday. And come November, they will listen to the one that is going to bring them home.

Posted by: Dee, Washington, DC | May 14, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

extortion-Queen, nice choice of words mike.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 14, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Contrast himself with McCain (and Clinton) on energy. Make a trip to the tar sands of Alberta. Ask if there is any way to speed it up, are new pipelines needed, etc... Hey look everyone - Obama is doing something in a stable country, that is a neighbor, with the oil reserves (albeit in tar sands) of Saudi Arabia. Then he can tour a wind farm or two. Maybe bash the liberals in Massachusetts who don't want wind power to spoil their ocean view. It's not like MA will be in play.

Posted by: muD | May 14, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Obama has shown sympathy towards our disastrous Texas HB 2 which capped med mal practice claims at $250,000 regardless of their merits, HC has opposed that. Obama has also supportered concepts like loser pay, whic means that if the dfendant offers you $5,000 on their drunk driving accident and a jury comes back with a verdict of $4,999, you are responsible for paying all of the litigation and defense costs which has a chilling effect on claimants who could end up winning at trial and be saddled with thousands in litigation costs. In Texas housewives and children who have no loss of earnings are particularly disadvantaged and as a result 90% of Texas trial lawyers are now refusing medmal cases regardless of their merits b/c of the extreme costs of litigating these claims. Obama has suggested he would consider such honorous tort laws which Texas trial lawyers understand has been an absolute disaster and put the insurance industry in the drivers seats, again even when the claims are clear cut and involve catastrophic injuries.

http://www.marylandlawyerblog.com/2008/01/hillary_clinton_and_barack_oba.html

Posted by: Leichtman | May 14, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

I can't figure out why Hillary supporters complain when we accuse them of being ignorant, poor white Americans when it was Hillary who originally said that's what you are? She is even using that fact as extortion to hold them back from voting for Obama. I could understand your animosity if Obama supporters had come up with it, but it was your own Queen that decided to play that card. And while we're at it, she was the one who decided to throw the kitchen sink. She bragged about it on national TV. As soon as she did, most of her followers became just as nasty as she was. Prior to that, I treated them all with respect but now, even though Obama is taking the high road, that doesn't mean the rest of us have to sit here and listen to the Clintonistas nasty little barbs. I'd suggest you get used to it. This is the road YOUR fearless leader made, not Obama.

Posted by: MikeMcNally | May 14, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Here's a better readings for you that cut through the political spin on both sides:

"Who's side are they all on?"
http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11332333

Simple fact: Iran plays all sides, and is simultaneously supported and opposed by all. To say that Sadr is allied with Iran and Maliki is against them is the same kind of gross oversimplificatin and misunderstanding in the region that got us into the mess we're in in the first place, ignoring the real politik going on between a diverse range of groups with motivations internal to Iraq. This is the essence of a low grade Civil War that can only be solved by the Iraqi people, not the United States.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 14, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

JakeD's shadow, And Barack Obama can't recall how many states there are in the country he's trying to be the leader of. He makes gaffes all the time, but you libs are so willing to overlook them, or explain it all away. How about this explanation - Barack Obama is an inexperienced, untested rookie. His brand of liberalism is appealing to the politically naive and the leftover 60s hippies, but leaves the rest of America cold.

The problem isn't necessarily that there's no there, there, it's that what is there the American people have seen -- and rejected -- before: Big government liberalism.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 14, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

I am a Hillary supporter 100 [per cent and I will be a McCain supporter 100 per cent in November 2008.

So will all my Democrat friends.

We will vote Republican just once to make sure Lawrence Wright's 20-yesr spritual protege doesn't get into the Oval Office.
All decent Americans need to unite to stop that.

Period.


Posted by: Ganpat Ram | May 14, 2008 1:16 PM
---------------------------------------


Okay, and .....................

Posted by: Dee, Washington, DC | May 14, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

amaikovich: if she had won Indiana by 7% instead of 2% it would not have made much difference in delegates even though she was outspent by 3:1. The night's story could easily have been why can't Obama close out HC even when outspending her 3:1 where there are large numbers of rural voters. The media spent the whole night promoting doubts whether she would win Indiana through Wed even though it was clear early on on Tues she had won. There was absolutely no credible explanation for the results not being released by the Gary mayor, since absolutely every other Indiana county had done so by 9 pm. New Politics? We will find out what happened as soon as we find out what mayor Dailey did in 1960.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 14, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Don't stop brother Obama. Engage McCain now and relentlessly until the election.

Posted by: Chief Two Dogs | May 14, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman,

Since you are clearly informed on the matter, please tell us:

What is the difference between Clinton and Obama on tort reform?

Thank you.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | May 14, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Wow, quoting the Wall Street Journal Opinion page as a source. Why not just cite Perino?

The basra campaigl led to mass defections within the Iraqi army, and only has served to reinforce al Sadr's position. Beyond that, the US, not the Iraqis, have been doing most of the fighting in both Basra and Sadr City, to include being 100% responsible for air support. That opinion piece is garbage.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 14, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

The Indiana vote was a defining moment because it was close. It wasn't a Florida winner-take-all. It was important because it was her last big opportunity to close the delegate gap.

My point was you are giving the mayor of Gary, IN, far more import than you should. You mention Obama's lack of experience as a real issue. That's a factor that people should consider. I pose that the mayor of Gary's experience and actions are not a consideration. We've already seen what "Swift boat" voters take us.

Posted by: amaikovich | May 14, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

By the way, is John McCain for or against a tax break for the rich? I think dementia is starting to kick in for old Mac... he doesn't know the difference between Sunni and Shia, he can't remember which Gulf war was meant to protect oil prices (psst...someone tell him it was both wars). He is a GOP guy true and true... a grand OLD poobah.
Say no to John McCain (say the "NO" loud).... he's too old to be president.

Posted by: JakeD's shadow | May 14, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

kreuz writes " the picture they would be given, and it would be total crap. Maliki is doing nothing to limit Iranian influence, quite the contrary .."

From today's WSJ:
the fact that Iran arranged the truce (and so far has made it stick) exposes the pretense that Tehran is an innocent bystander in the war for Iraq.

The truce suggests, instead, that Iran has grudgingly come to respect Mr. Maliki as a serious opponent. Having invested itself so heavily in Mr. Sadr's success, Tehran had little reason to suddenly lend its diplomatic offices unless it felt the Mahdi Army was on the verge of defeat. Last week's truce may have postponed that moment, but there's little doubt Mr. Sadr's movement has suffered an embarrassing defeat.

However fitfully it began, the Basra campaign is a sign that Iraqis are in fact "standing up" for their own security. It is also a personal vindication for Mr. Maliki, who recognized to his credit that his government had to have a monopoly on violence in Shiite neighborhoods as much as in Sunni enclaves.

In the last year we were told first that the surge was a military failure, and later that it was a military success but that Iraq's political class had not lived up to its end of the bargain.

In fact, just as surge supporters said, the Iraqis have become more confident and effective the more they have become convinced that the U.S. was not going to cut and run.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121072590056290307.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks


Shouldn't Mr Obama visit and talk with our Iraqi allies and determine for himself whether to continue to support our allies, or is it just that he's now inalterably committed to withdrawl from Iraq because of his opposition to the war and his anti-war constituents, facts on the ground be damned.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 14, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

yes bonjedi The Texas Trial Lawyers Association are uniformed and ignoring their own political analysis and breathlesly waiting for your brilliant opinions about their specialty since you and your crowd arrogantly know much more about our profession.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 14, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

When will John McCain release his health records? I'm just afraid he's too OLD to be the president.

Posted by: JakeD's shadow | May 14, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

"INDIANA WAS THE TIE BREAKER (will be happy to repost that Obama quote)"

Yeah, the Obama campaign threw a nice feint in there...

With the whole Lake County thing, let it go man, the Lake County sherriff, prosecutor and the chairs of the Democratic and Republican party were all there watching the process. It was completely legit.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 14, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Obama needs a fundamental change. Since a race change is impossible, I suggest a sex change!

Posted by: candide | May 14, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

no actually Tuben was complaining b/c he claimed it was unheard of when every other county in the state had released results by 9 pm. He thought it not only highly irregular but potentially manipulative if not illegal, so did all of the mayors from surrounding communities and they said so publicly.

Why is it impt? B/C many analyst are pointing to that evening as a change moment in the primary. The news all evening was can HC hold on in Indiana rather than she was once again outspent 3:1 and against her opponent's obvious predictions that INDIANA WAS THE TIE BREAKER(will be happy to repost that Obama quote),and had won the state( which they obviously were manipulated to not be able to say) all that was talked about was Obama's win in N.Carolina and we don't know IF HC will win Indiana at 9 pm when she was giving her speech, when it was obvious that the Gary Mayor likely knew the results at 7:30 pm when Indiana should have been called for HC but for the Chicago style manipulation by the Gary mayor. Interesting we have yet to have an answer from the Gary Obama operation why those results were not released until 2 am the next day. Apparently that is you above your pay grade understanding of politcal strategies; wouldn't expect you to comprehend its implications, since it is obvious you have attended many political training camps.
Incidentally how will your side feel if for instance the Fla Sec of State say on election eve they can not release the deciding results from Jacksonville. I am sure from your comments you will feel quite comfortable if something like that should happen from an R official in a crucial state, hm do you remember Katherine Harris?

Posted by: Leichtman | May 14, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

no actually Tuben was complaining b/c he claimed it was unheard of when every other county in the state had released results by 9 pm. He thought it not only highly irregular but potentially manipulative if not illegal, so did all of the mayors from surrounding communities and they said so publicly.

Why is it impt? B/C many analyst are pointing to that evening as a change moment in the primary. The news all evening was can HC hold on in Indiana rather than she was once again outspent 3:1 and against her opponent's obvious predictions that INDIANA WAS THE TIE BREAKER(will be happy to repost that Obama quote),and had won the state( which they obviously were manipulated to not be able to say) all that was talked about was Obama's win in N.Carolina and we don't know IF HC will win Indiana at 9 pm when she was giving her speech, when it was obvious that the Gary Mayor likely knew the results at 7:30 pm when Indiana should have been called for HC but for the Chicago style manipulation by the Gary mayor. Interesting we have yet to have an answer from the Gary Obama operation why those results were not released until 2 am the next day. Apparently that is you above your pay grade understanding of politcal strategies; wouldn't expect you to comprehend its implications, since it is obvious you have attended many political training camps.
Incidentally how will your side feel if for instance the Fla Sec of State say on election eve they can not release the deciding results from Jacksonville. I am sure from your comments you will feel quite comfortable if something like that should happen from a R official.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 14, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

"kreuz, I fail to see how meeting with Iraqi government officials and seeing firsthand the ongoing efforts by the our Iraqi allies to stabilize thier own country and reject Iranian influence and Al-Qaeda would be bad for anyone who seeks to be Commander in Chief."

Because that would be the picture they would be given, and it would be total crap. Maliki is doing nothing to limit Iranian influence, quite the contrary he's moving the country closer to them. And al Qa'ida is a red herring, has been for years, but I'll get to that following your next point. It wouldn't be a bad idea, but it wouldn't do much good either, it would frankly be a waste of time.

"Retreating from Iraq as Obama has planned to do would carry enormous strategic costs for the United States. It would increase the likelihood that al Qaeda would gain safe havens that they could use to attack us here at home. It would be a propaganda victory of colossal proportions for the global terrorist movement."

al Qa'ida will NEVER gain safe haven in Iraq. The Shi'ites are their mortal enemy, the Kurds hate them, and even the Sunnis can't stand them now. The only people who talk about al Qa'ida in Iraq are the Bush Administration and their political allies- bnecause for all intensive purposes AQIZ has been destroyed, largely as a victim of their own success. Al Qa'ida's strength is when they are the outside insurgent group battling the big bad United States. That piece of their agenda is appealing to some Iraqis, but when we declared Anbar province lost and AQIZ tried to actually establis their Caliphate there, the people realized what a horrible idea it was and rejected it. That is what led to their defeat in Anbar and why they are so on the decline today, and why they will never gain a base of operations in a future Iraqi state.

"It would signal to Iran that we were not serious about confronting its efforts to impose its will on the region. It would signal to people across the Middle East that the United States cannot be trusted to keep its word. Obama has not discussed the consequences of his plan to retreat from Iraq. He should go there and tell the Iraqis to their face."

You keep using that word "retreat," I'd still like an explanation how we retreat from an occupation. We are not on offense or defense there, we are not at war with Iran, and we did not promise the Iraqis a blank check. We have spent five years there, lost 4,000 American lives, and are on pace to have spent more than 2 trillion dollars on this campaign. It is time for the Iraqis to stand up, that is what this is all about. We have done all that we can for them, but their future is in their own hands, not ours. Don't want Iran to have a stronger influence in the region? Well then you should have opposed this fools errand from the beginning, because a stronger Iran will emerge no matter what the outcome of Iraq is in the long run. We took out their two greatest enemies and gave them a means to undermine us through covert action. Staying there only continues to play into their hands.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 14, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

"The tort reform issue is a big deal to large numbers of lawyers who I have spoken with."

Are they as ill-informed as you are on Hillary's support for tort reform?

Posted by: bondjedi | May 14, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Jeeezzz you people are long-winded! It's the SMILE....Obama has a great smile - ensorcelling was what Maureen Dowd called it - I looked it up - it means 'bewitching or enchanting'. It's his secret weapon - he needs to use it much more often. I think he often looks too serious.

Posted by: TESS | May 14, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

kreuz, I fail to see how meeting with Iraqi government officials and seeing firsthand the ongoing efforts by the our Iraqi allies to stabilize thier own country and reject Iranian influence and Al-Qaeda would be bad for anyone who seeks to be Commander in Chief.

Retreating from Iraq as Obama has planned to do would carry enormous strategic costs for the United States. It would increase the likelihood that al Qaeda would gain safe havens that they could use to attack us here at home. It would be a propaganda victory of colossal proportions for the global terrorist movement.

It would signal to Iran that we were not serious about confronting its efforts to impose its will on the region. It would signal to people across the Middle East that the United States cannot be trusted to keep its word. Obama has not discussed the consequences of his plan to retreat from Iraq. He should go there and tell the Iraqis to their face.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 14, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

amaikovich: my post about the Gary mayor has to do with the hypocrisy of the Obama campaign saying things like we practice New Politics or don't take lobbyist money. The Gary stunt reminds me of Mayor Dailey and the 1960 campaign finding thousands of ballots from deceased voters, would you call that NEW POLITICS or claiming he doesn't take corp contributions when no one can.

As to his supporters insults that to me represents cowardice of his campaign to simply tell his supporters to shut up and stop the constant insults of boomers and women voters. Sorry but the constant racists comments directed at the Clintons and the B word yelled at HC and Chelsea are unacceptable, and it is totally unbelievable that even when they claim they have won the nomination has not stopped.

The experience factor is a big deal to me. I couldn't imagine my Texas State Senator with a few year in the US Senate having the qualifications to run this nation.

The tort reform issue is a big deal to large numbers of lawyers who I have spoken with.

Wright, the flag pin who cares.His support by Farrakhan and Hamas leaders is problematic and will likely cost him any shot at Fla. And I couldn't believe I saw him wearing the flag pin yesterday, what the heck is that about.

Posted by: Leichtan | May 14, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

AS an educated white I find it troubling when you are trying to say W.Va represents all Americans. Here is why the Post says Hillary did well:

Clinton was heavily favored in West Virginia because of the demographics of the state. The population is older, overwhelmingly white, heavily rural, and less affluent and less educated than in some other states.

I want a bunch of old, poor, uneducated people being the deciding population that tells us how America is viewing this election.

Posted by: Stop the insanity | May 14, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

"So will all my Democrat friends."

You give yourself away...a real Democrat would refer to their Democratic friends.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 14, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

"He decried the decision for a troop surge, but has made no return trips to Iraq to see the effects of it."

You honestly think politicians on junkets see the ground truth? C'mon. The last thing folks need at VBC is another dog and pony show for another politician moving through the area, it takes too much time away from other vital tasks because it's always given priority, and they are never allowed to deviate from a meticulously planned schedule where they are fed what DoD wants them to see. They get far more from hearings, and that's saying a lot because they get next to nothing from them as is.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 14, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

whatever, very thoughtful.

If CBS reported it earlier they were the only news org to do so including Chuck Todd and Jffrey Tubin who have a lot more influence on political commentary then CBS. Indiana has been know for some pretty shady politcal stunts including their voter id policies. The mayors in Lake County were really ticked with the Gary mayor and all of the spinning in the world won't change that. I don't find Tuben to be anything but a straight shooter and he was truly upset by that Indiana political stunt by an Obama supporter who guaranteed he would deliver the state to Obama.

And are you denying that Senator Obama bragged to Chris Wallace how he was a leader, contrary to what they would believe, in comprehensive tort reform. Somehow he thought that comment just like his comment in SF would be overlooked. You and Sen Obama might think that children who die from medical practice as they do here in Texas or victims with broken bones from drunk drivers should be precluded from recovery and Sen Obama's political whipping boys, I don't.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 14, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

scrivener


You are insane. Reread your post. Obama has the MAJORITY of votes. Gore has none, if people wanted Edwards they should have voted for him. You people are crazy, since your person is LOSING, which they are, you are saying destroy a democratic process to suit your needs. UNREAL. THE MAJORITY OF VOTES ARE FOR OBAMA!!!

Your basing your argument on W.VA? Known best throughout all of this country for in-breeding. Are you serious? So you are saying screw the majority of voters for this idiotic plan. Forget FL and MI, you are talking about not counting the MAJORITY of votes. Go to Russia, thats where stuff like you are suggesting happens.

If you were winning and it was mathematically improbable to lose, would you throw in the towel and upset the MAJORITY of the party that voted for you? Insanity runs wild.

Posted by: Stop the insanity | May 14, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: scrivener | May 14, 2008 12:47 PM
-------------------
You have been ranting about this for weeks. Gore and Edwards are not going to be given the nomination. Put down the pipe, people should not post when they are clearly high.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | May 14, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

I am a Hillary supporter 100 [per cent and I will be a McCain supporter 100 per cent in November 2008.

So will all my Democrat friends.

We will vote Republican just once to make sure Lawrence Wright's 20-yesr spritual protege doesn't get into the Oval Office.
All decent Americans need to unite to stop that.

Period.

Posted by: Ganpat Ram | May 14, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

kreuz writes "Do you really think the President never has to make long plane trips and be prepared to make major policy statements afterwards? Not the best defense out there for somethning that is so important"

I agree it's important, which is why I wonder why Obama has spent a grand total of 2 days in Iraq in 2006, before the surge. He decried the decision for a troop surge, but has made no return trips to Iraq to see the effects of it.

He took 15 days during the same year to go to Africa to hawk his book, Audacity of Hope.

There's Americans in Iraq, doesn't Obama want their vote, too?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 14, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

I usually don't read the personal blogs, as opposed to blogs about issues, but today's was relatively amusing.

I just couldn't follow one part of Leichtman's reasoning. He wrote, "I could care less about Rev Wright and the stupid flag pin, totally non issues...", yet lists as real issues as the mayor of Gary, IN, holding up a vote count? In other words, he's not voting for someone because of what the mayor of Gary, IN, may or may not have done? Sheesh.

In another blog, it sounded like he wouldn't vote for Obama because PDiddy and other Obama supporters are mean to him. Double sheesh.

As for tort reform, I really don't know about the issue. But at least that's the type of topic I hope the voters will consider...and then pick the best man based on all of the major issues combined.

Posted by: amaikovich | May 14, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

scrivener, lay off the crack. No one other than Obama or Clinton is going to be the nominee, and the odds of it being Clinton are completely unrealistic.

Posted by: kreuz_missile. | May 14, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

I would like to know what comes with Obama. I would like him to start lining up his possible cabinet and give some indication of who would be on it. Do they fill in his weaknesses? Which are the top people he will bring together?

Posted by: Pamela MacGahan | May 14, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Yes, you'll have to excuse us if we don't find the notion of wrecklessly surrendering to yet another country and putting our country more at risk is a subject for humor.

Posted by: we surrender | May 14, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

"i was a strong hillary supporter, but the contest is basically over and i am now with obama 100%. the time has come for all democrats to set aside their bitterness and unite."

That is certainly your right but I find it interesting, that we certainly did not get that sense weeks ago from you when you posted here. Your posts as I recall were very strongly proObama. That is fine if you want to support someone who is totally unqualified to run this country that is not for me. Considering how JFK with 13 years in Congress was called by his colleagues a lightweight would would that make Sen Obama with less than 4 years in the US Senate, a featherweight?

Posted by: Leichtman | May 14, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

"Do you just love to MAKE THINGS UP AND CALL THEM FACTS?"

Whatever. You have been busted (again) pulling things from your bum. You have been informed that CBS called Indiana before the 9:00 p.m. "news cycle" (?), and you say that's wrong because ... CNN and MSNBC called it later? Try again, Leichtman.

We're still waiting for explaining the disconnect between Hillary's sponsoring a tort reform bill, and your understanding that she opposes it. One of you is lying.

Posted by: bondjedi | May 14, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

"First of all, have ANY of you ever flown over to Iraq and expereienced the extreme jet lag that ensues?"

Done it a couple of times, thank you. Do you really think the President never has to make long plane trips and be prepared to make major policy statements afterwards? Not the best defense out there for somethning that is so important (and it wasn't just in Iraq, it's happened several times here at home too).

"bsimon, you didn't show that same humor when siding with the left about McCain's joke about Iran"

Yes, you'll have to excuse us if we don't find the notion of wrecklessly bombing yet another country and putting our country more at risk is a subject for humor.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 14, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman, avoiding the question, as expected, posts:
JK5432
"Again, so what? Did the delay change anything,"

"obviously you have convinced yourself that effecting a news cycle and denying HC the opportunity to declare that she won Indiana at 9 pm when CNN and MSNBC could only talk about N Carolina, until the next day had no political implications. Who cares. There are many political consultants who have written that that event was likely the turning event for the nomination, again with no explanations other than to call those who disagree liars and point to those results being released at 9 pm in Guam and Hawaii."

The reason this is my last post on the subject is that nothing will get thru to you. I've asked multiple times what effect this had on the primaries, or anything else? You keep playing parrot that it "affected the news cycle." How? As I said, it simply delayed pundits like Russert from declaring Obama the nominee because they had to wait and see how things played out. As someone else noted, CBS called Indiana for Clinton hours before everyone else did. Did that affect the news cycle? No. Bottom line is that the delay in reporting those votes was meaningless, just like your posts which avoid answering the basic question, which I will repeat for the hard of understanding - "How did the delay affect the primaries, either Indiana or North Carolina?"

"And you refuse to answer my questions: 1. Why did the Gary Mayor brag that he would deliver Indiana for Obama. 2. Why were the 5 mayors results refused to be released at 7:30 pm contrary to what every other Indiana County had done according to these mayors and Jeffrey Toobin, CNN legal analyst, who claimed oh my gosh what are these people in Gary up to. But I am sure that since you are so expert at insulting anyone who disagrees with you you will call Toobin a liar and shill for HC. We are used to your garbage."

Answers: 1. Who cares? He was obviously wrong. No soup for him. 2. Who knows? Who cares? Did the fact they weren't released "on time" affect the voting anyplace else in Indiana (wait, that's right the voting was already over in Indiana, as well as NC by then) or the rest of the free or non-free world? Of course not. Methinks they simply wanted their 15 seconds of publicity. They ended up with a lot more than that because they could extend their agitation for a lot longer than if the numbers had come in quickly. So, from a PR perspective, they should be happy for the delay - they got a lot more face time than they deserved.

As to Toobin, he was hardly the only one asking the question; all of the pundits on MSNBC and Fox were asking the same thing; the emphasis was on why there would be such a delay, since the expectations were that these votes would be heavily Obama, with the potential of turning it into an Obama victory. No one expected that they would generate a massive increase in Clinton's lead, so the delay had no negative effect on her - she was ahead and stayed there.

So, leichtman, feel free to rave on, avoiding the relevant question; we both know you will.

Posted by: JK5432 | May 14, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

nevadaandy - "A holiday on gas taxes is a band aid. Obama sees this and was honest about it. Unlike most politicians who only want to give good news or no news, he tells you like it is - be it good or bad. Isn't is time we had a president who can tell us both the good and bad news?"

I don't recall him saying that there would be no relief from gas prices for 30 years until all the ideas he has on an energy solution become reality. Coming out against a mediocre short term fix at best should not put him in the Honest Abe category. His solution is to find alternative energy, chiefly in the near future by bio fuel/ethanol. Honesty would have been saying not only will there be no gas price relief in your lifetime, my solutions will raise food prices for everyone.

Posted by: Dave! | May 14, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

THE REAL REASON WHY AL GORE AND JOHN EDWARDS HAVE NOT ENDORSED:

Just take a hard, objective look at the demos come out of Hillary's landslide. This was a protest vote of monumental proportions. They don't love Hillary down in WV; they just think Obama is not ready for prime-time. He's not, and what they used to call "the real majority" of this nation knows it.

The pundits are talking about the people of WV as if they're all Li'l Abners and Miss Daisies. Perhaps the voters of WV are sending a dual message to Obama:

(1) You may think we're a bunch of red-necked racists, but the fact is, we think you lack the experience to be president; and

(2) If you're not willing to even TRY to convince WV Democrats that we should vote for you, how in the world are you going to convince enough Independents and the now-phantom "Obamicans" that they should support you in the fall (if indeed he makes it that far)?

Chris, I see that today you're saying Hillary "faces "long odds," as opposed to yesterdayis conclusion that Obama is the inevitable nominee. (Hillary was once "inevitable, too, I recall. The demographic analyses coming out of WV are devastating because folks down there share the same negative opinions of Hillary as do rational people in other regions. The WV voters were not just saying, "This race isn't over." They're crying out for an alternate choice -- not Obama, not Hillary, but someone who can actually win in November.

The supers know this, and they're watching, waiting. John Edwards is preparing for the day when the ultimatum is put to Obama: step aside and unite the party as our vice presidential candidate, or we'll do the job for you. If the supers decide that giving the alternative nod to a primary season loser is too risky, then go with a man who has shown he can win the popular vote for President: Al Gore. It's the only way the party leadership can avoid rewarding Hillary for her slash-and-burn tactics, and it's the only way Obama can emerge from this process with his political future and his political gut instincts intact.

Barack, make the move before you suffer more ignominious defeats at the hands of the Dems' she-devil. Checkmate her; far better to serve as veepee in an Edwards or Gore administration than to be forced to run for president with Hillary at your side, and lose.

Bottom line: Obama nor Hillary can overcome their negatives as the party standard-bearer.

Obama will have secured his place in history IF he wisely wields his delegate power BEFORE Hillary's victories wash it away. Why wait until the likely "Hillary surprise" that's coming in Oregon? Do it now, Barack. Play your ace in the hole and make Hillary fold now by throwing your delegates to Al Gore or John Edwards. You'll make a great vice president and you'll unite the party and you'll set yourself up for a run at the top job in 2016. Is that so bad?

They're calling Hillary the delusional narcissist; what if it turns out the other way around? Only you, Mr. Obama, can keep that from happening.

Call it "the audacity of NOT now, but maybe later." Live to fight another day. Embrace "the third way" and make it YOUR path to the White House and not something you will otherwise may be forced to do in a matter of weeks.

Posted by: scrivener | May 14, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

mnteng, Perhaps you'll forgive me for lumping you together with the ardent followers of His Hopefulness, but I am not going to allow this running narrative to continue to go unchallenged. The left is harping on this, just like drindl here, who is anonymously posting about McCain's trip to Bagdhad. In fact, that was not the same trip. McCain has traveled to Iraq many times over the years.

How many times has Barack Obama been to Iraq? Hell, he can't even remember how many states there are, or which one he's in on any given day.

bsimon, you didn't show that same humor when siding with the left about McCain's joke about Iran. funny how the libs are notorious for having no sense of humor, except when it comes to excusing Barama of another foot--in-mouth moment.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 14, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

i was a strong hillary supporter, but the contest is basically over and i am now with obama 100%. the time has come for all democrats to set aside their bitterness and unite.

throughout this primary season, i have been appalled at the vitriol being hurled between the two democratic candidates' supporters, especially online and in the blogosphere. more than once in the comments section of this blog, the fix, i vented about the irony of hearing such divisiveness from the obama folks. they rail against hillary, her supporters, republicans, evangelical Christians, etc., with such viciousness. his supporters could be "Exhibit A" in the case against obama's own vision for a unified post-partisan nation.

so, let's cool it and keep our eyes on the prize: the white house. hillary is not attacking obama anymore in her speeches. it makes perfect sense for her to keep running: as long as she is a declared candidate, she has some leverage in negotiating an honorable conclusion to her campaign. she came close enough: it was a 51-49 race, not a blowout for obama. the clintons are the two most important people in determining Obama's ability to seal the deal with hillary's loyal constituencies. obama needs them to help him unite the party.

Posted by: harlemboy | May 14, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

"Look like you're really enjoying being with people, eating corndogs etc. ... " What is the rest of this sentence, I wonder. Perhaps "...even if your not actually enjoying any of it."?

Posted by: Dave! | May 14, 2008 12:39 PM

Can I get some Arugula on my dog? Can you make that a Tofu dog?

Posted by: snObama | May 14, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

"Someone should hire me.


What are these people thinking."


Posted by: Words of Wisdom
****************************
what they always think when you send in your resume - store in circular file.

Posted by: wisdom, thou art denied... | May 14, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

"Again, so what? Did the delay change anything, "

obviously you have convinced yourself that effecting a news cycle and denying HC the opportunity to declare that she won Indiana at 9 pm when CNN and MSNBC could only talk about N Carolina, until the next day had no political implications. Who cares. There are many political consultants who have written that that event was likely the turning event for the nomination, again with no explanations other than to call those who disagree liars and point to those results being released at 9 pm in Guam and Hawaii.

And you refuse to answer my questions: 1. Why did the Gary Mayor brag that he would deliver Indiana for Obama. 2. Why were the 5 mayors results refused to be released at 7:30 pm contrary to what every other Indiana County had done according to these mayors and Jeffrey Toobin, CNN legal analyst, who claimed oh my gosh what are these people in Gary up to. But I am sure that since you are so expert at insulting anyone who disagrees with you you will call Toobin a liar and shill for HC. We are used to your garbage.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 14, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

"obama foolishly has allowed the clinton campaign to paint him as someone out of touch with the values and plight of less-educated, less-affluent white americans."

For example by releasing his "bitter-gate" comments. horror of horrors, releasing the truth. why is any revealation about Obama considerd dirt. Interesting.

Posted by: tee hee | May 14, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

mnteng, if you wanted to continue the conversation off - blog, email me at mark-in-austin@operamail.com

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 14, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

CC: Some thoughts on your thoughts...

A Middle East Pilgrimage - Is any window dressing really going help him with his fundametal problem - wanting to include, bring to the table and legitimize the likes of Hamas and Ahmedinejad?

Blow the Caps? - The question is can 10s of millions of advertising dollars compensate for the image hit? Despite the fact that this action will show him to be the traditional politician that he rails against, he has enough money and goodwill from the MSM so it will not be fatal.

Revisit the Rust belt - Good ideas here and Obama has the personality to pull it off, as long as he stays out of Frisco...

Big Rhetoric, Big Ideas - Why take the risk? He is winning without it. The public apparently is gullable enough to believe he will solve these things despite his lack of specifics or demonstrated ability to bridge partisanship.

Take Five - Are you sure this isn't just an excuse so that The Fix can get some R&R?

Pull Back the Curtain - This works better if the candidate comes across as legit, something he has a problem with at times. For heavens sake, stay away from bowling alleys. "As one Democratic consultant put it: "Look like you're really enjoying being with people, eating corndogs etc. ... " What is the rest of this sentence, I wonder. Perhaps "...even if your not actually enjoying any of it."?

Posted by: Dave! | May 14, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

the socio-economic conditions of blue collar workers in america are changing rapidly. clearly, many blue collar workers in america are apprehensive and suspicious.

hillary clinton may be as phony as a three dollar bill (no pun intended) but she seems willing to at least pretend that she cares about the plight of blue collar workers. not so, apparently, obama.

in west virginia obama made one campaign stop. if obama wants the presidency he must reassure blue collar america that he empathizes with their plight. obama should give a speech on class.

i don't mean a bill clintonesque "i feel your pain" load of bs. obama should give an address that comes from the heart. it should be as honest and powerful as his recent speech on race.

obama foolishly has allowed the clinton campaign to paint him as someone out of touch with the values and plight of less-educated, less-affluent white americans.

by using his rhetorical gifts obama should be able to communicate to blue collar america his history as well as where the less well-off fit into his vision of "change". (obama should be aware that "change" is a scary concept to more than a few in america today!)

an address on class is overdue. it should also include a few lines on women in america. a speech may be the only way obama has of undoing the divisiveness caused by the clintons.

Posted by: a. g. c. | May 14, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Throughout this campaign Obama has been consistent in his message of change, whereas Hillary has flip flopped from experience to change to experience and change.

Obama's core belief is in We the People - standing together we can change the way things are done in Washington by electing people with fresh ideas and a new approach to managing government.

Obama's engaged Gen Y because they will be the ones who have the most to lose in the coming decades if we don't get control of the major issues facing our nation - the economy, health care, the environment. They and their children and future generations will have to pay the consequences of decisions made by the next President. Gen Y sees this and they are finally engaged in the decision making process that for too long they have left up to the older generation to decide for them. They are looking for a leader who will secure a good future America, not a leader who will continue to take America down a path of self destruction.

The challenges facing all Americans and the next president are daunting.We need a president who has a good perspective on the underlying problems and who won't take a band aid approach to these problems. A holiday on gas taxes is a band aid. Obama sees this and was honest about it. Unlike most politicians who only want to give good news or no news, he tells you like it is - be it good or bad. Isn't is time we had a president who can tell us both the good and bad news? Unfortunately, too many Americans only want to hear the good news and not the bad and that's what they get, so now that we're faced with the possibility of paying $5.00 a gallon for gas, we're upset. I'm sure our leaders saw this coming a long time ago (after all the current administration is in the oil business).

This is certainly the most exciting and most historical presidential campaign in history.

Posted by: nevadaandy | May 14, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

proud:

First off, I didn't excuse any of BHO's misstatements. Though I didn't provide concrete examples, I said he has a problem with direct answers. And now you've provided some examples of misstatements.

Also, I believe I said that McC would come off better in the town halls than BHO. McC IS honest and frank, and sometimes that gets him into trouble.

I've never flown to Iraq, but I have flown across the Pacific and Atlantic many times. Granted I'm significantly younger than McC, but there are some things you forget (did I leave the iron on?) and some things you don't (why am I here?). Joe Lieberman, who was traveling with McC and had the same itinerary, didn't have a problem with remembering the Shia/Sunni thing.

Don't confuse me with the hard-core BHO supporters on this site. I've said previously that I like all three candidates, obviously for different reasons. Personally, I like to have a clear-eyed view of the strengths AND weaknesses of the candidate I vote for.

Posted by: mnteng | May 14, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Well, there are three places to put your money - RNCC, Hillary, or McCain. Since you are so confident...

Posted by: Are Libs' panini bread - toast is so lower class | May 14, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

"Glib is breaking pledges and rules and offering justification when there are no justification."

you mean like not wearing a flag pin before wearing a flag pin? you mean like sitting for 20 years and not hearing? you mean like working with mad bombers and not knowing them?

Posted by: tee hee | May 14, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

The fact that McCain allows cameras to always roll and reporters to always have access just shows us how open a guy he is, honest and frank.

Funny Proud, wasn't that the same trip where McShame said that walking in the market was like a stroll in Middle America on any weekend?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 14, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

This is ACTUALLY a really stupid move on the part of Obama


Obama's team messes up again.


Moving on to the general election only focuses the superdelegates on the McCain Obama matchups. Doing that when they dont have the superdelegates locked up, is a cause for the superdelegates NOT to go with Obama.

Someone should hire me.

What are these people thinking.

.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 14, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

"I actually heard Obama on npr report where they interviewed a little kid who had just run for student body president and won. Obama asked her over the radio how many debates she had done with her opponents. She said none. And Obama says "None! Thats sounds good!"

This from a guy who wants to be leader of the free world."

My God! A president with a sense of humor! Perish the thought!

Posted by: bsimon | May 14, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

You'll see the press, and Obama's surrogates (perhaps I repeat myself) insist that tonight's result means nothing, and indeed, in the delegate count, the effect is marginal. But superdelegates ought to be sweating. White working-class voters, and various overlapping demographics - the elderly, Catholics, Jews - just aren't warming up to Obama, and they've been the backbone for the party for generations. Liberal bloggers (and Saturday Night Live, and arguably the Washington Post) are responding by suggesting Hillary's supporters are racist; these people may not be so eager to vote for Obama in November as the pundits insist. Once you insult a voter by calling them racist, they may not be eager to meekly repent by doing as their moral betters in the pundit class demand.

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDVjNDU3ZTRhYzkwODNlZDg2YTBkYjZlOWE3NDEwY2E=

Posted by: Libs are toast | May 14, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

The post at May 14, 2008 12:06 PM was mine. forgot to sign. Any further questions?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 14, 2008 12:19 PM

**************************
How sweet of you to admit to a thing like that...God bless you...

Posted by: LABC | May 14, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

"Another lie, almost as lame as the tall-tales you have been spinning about Obama thuggery in Texas. CBS called Indiana for Hillary well before the wee hours, right around 9:00. Try again, Leichtman."

excuse me where did you pull that out of???
I watched MSNBC and CNN until 1:40 am when they were finally putting a check by HC.

Do you just love to MAKE THINGS UP AND CALL THEM FACTS?

"Clinton was declared the winner in Indiana more than "six hours" after polls closed in the state."

Vote counts were held up by Lake County, which was hand-counting 11,000 absentee ballots. Eventually returns came in showing the county trending toward Obama, an indication that he could pull out an upset in the state. The county includes the heavily black city of Gary, near Obama's home city of Chicago. Gary Mayor Rudy Clay, an Obama supporter, predicted a shocker as the votes were being tallied, but in the end Clinton won by 2 points, 51 percent to Obama's 49 percent."

Do you think that we are so naive bonjedi that you can post any garbage here and pass it off as fact? Maybe it was 9 pm in Hawaii, certainly that is exactly what you were referring to when you once again labeled me and the AP as liars.


Posted by: Leichtman | May 14, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

His next move should be to look at the good of our Party and declare Hillary the victor. Thank you West Virginia for keeping our greatest hope for November alive and well. I'm so sick of "do the math". It was less than 3 months ago the pundits said Obama cannot win by math alone. Thump, 41 points, thump, West Virginia. You do the math. Obama cannot win in the general election. We Democrats need to do the right thing and nominate Hillary. She can win in November without Obama and he can't win without her (not that he would ask or she would accept). Just like men, pundits, DNC, news media, to ask the woman to make him President. Please wake up, voters left and superdelegates, it's not over yet, and Hillary will win and prevail in the end!!! Also, please donate to Hillary at www.hillaryclinton.com

Posted by: Anonymous | May 14, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Don't you think most of the people out there are tired of these non-issues being raised?

Posted by: JK5432 | May 14, 2008 11:38 AM

I would like to think so, but given the "non-issues" that have arisen thoughout the primaries I doubt it.

Posted by: JNoel002 | May 14, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Both McCain and Obama are bad when they go off script. You could clearly see it when Obama did that long Q & A with the press after his Wright fiasco. He comes off as too haulting and he stammers really badly.
Posted by: Patrick NYC

You prefer glib? Glib is parsing "is." Glib is substituting "misspoke" for "lied." Glib is breaking pledges and rules and offering justification when there are no justification. Glib is moving the goal posts and proclaiming it as just. It's the way con men speak.

Posted by: edwcorey | May 14, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

The post at May 14, 2008 12:06 PM was mine. forgot to sign. Any further questions?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 14, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous wrote: "Obama may get of 100% black votes but he will have hard time even getting simple majority of Latino votes in the general election."

Fact-free garbage. Obama is polling ten points ahead of McCain among Hispanics right now, better than Kerry did against Bush.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/107110/Obamas-Support-Similar-Kerrys-2004.aspx

You Hillary supporters remind me of Bush supporters in that you adopt as "fact" whatever you'd like to be true, without even bothering to check whether it actually is true. Truthiness is the word for it.

Posted by: OD | May 14, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Good suggestions all.

Posted by: charles laffiteau | May 14, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman ups the paranoia:
"jk5432 you hypocritically claim you are not insulting me and never have and then you make a personal swipe."

Actually, I never claimed not to have ever insulted you; I pointed out that all of your posts disparage Obama supporters, depsit eyour constant whining about how terrible Obama supporters are. To be honest, as I've pointed out in the past in response to your wild gyrations, you really aren't worth insulting - your words are quite sufficient on their own to do so.

"The fact that HC was denied the right to claim Indiana as victory at 9 pm during the news cycle and for almost 24 hours all we heard about was N Carolina b/c they were supposedly still counting Indiana votes at 1 am was more then suspicious. It smelled of Chicago and Teamster type politics of the worst sort."

That old conspiracy theory again; I watched a lot of the coverage and it was very consistent - Clinton was ahead by about 2% and, depending on the results from a supposed Obama stronghold, she might end up losing the lead or, at best, retain a minimal win. Which turned out to be the case; if anything, holding the votes HELPED, because it delayed the inevitable statement that she was toast. If the numbers had been applied and all the votes counted earlier, all of the pundits would have thrown dirt on her earlier than they did. Or is that too logical for you to grasp?

"Don't believe me and think no one saw that as a possible turning point in an election which Obama predicted not only that he would win Indiana but that it should be the tie breaker, ask the 5 mayors in the towns that surround Gary. One of them was furious and said so on CNN, felt he had been gamed by the Gary mayor who promised he would deliver Indiana for Obama and obviously had a hard time trying to find enough additional thousand of ballots to stuff the ballot box with to change the outcome."

Hard to have a conspiracy when the end results don't justify it. The votes came in; they came in late; they didn't change a bloody thing. There was no tampering; if anything, with all of the pundits claiming those votes would be heavily for Obama, I guess the conspiracy should be why they didn't change the percentages. Hmmm, there's something you can sink your teeth into, Leichtman.

"The Lake County mayor was on CNN all night and was furious that all of the votes from his town and from 5 other surrounding towns were turned in at 7:30 pm but refused by the Gary mayor to be released until the next day. Minor coincidence that he was not only an Obama supporter but that he guaranteed he would deliver Indiana for Obama.Just a coincidence, right?"

Again, so what? Did the delay change anything, Leichtman? That's the question I asked and the one you keep avoiding. The answer is that it had absolutely zero effect on anything, except to delay the pundits calling Clinton toast. You should be happy, not wired.

"If you think that vote tampering and playing games to make sure and keep HC from announcing an early Indiana win did not effect the news cycle, then you are truly naive. I and many people in the campaign saw that stunt as a turning point in the nomination process which I am sure that Obama worshipers see as the New Politics."

It affected the news cycle? Man, let's call out the National Gurad (whoops, most of them are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, where McCain, your alternate vote, wants to keep them) to man the barricades. I'd say that's the most rididculous thing you've posted, but you never seem to sink to ever lower depths of irrelevance.

And, I'm still waiting for an answer on how the delay in providing the vote tallies affected the primaries, either IN or NC. I have a feeling that I'll be waiting a long time.

Posted by: JK5432 | May 14, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

CHRIS, "LUV THE SHOW",
OBAMA NEEDS ALWAYS USE THE PRONOUN "WE", "ARE IN IT TOGETHER", WHILE THE OTHER MORONIC CANDIDATES PLAY TO THEIR EGOS! I AGREE HE NEEDS TO MEET WITH THE GREAT UNWASHED, BUT OBAMA HAS A DIFFERENT ELECTORAL MAP, AND I BELIEVE HE THINKS THE GENERAL ELECTION WILL BE WON IN THE WEST! I ALSO OPINE THAT VOTER DISAFFECTION WITH THE G.O.P. IS SO GREAT IN 2008, THAT WE MAY WITNESS A LANDSLIDE!

Posted by: tom tyskiewicz | May 14, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

CHRIS, "LUV THE SHOW",
OBAMA NEEDS ALWAYS USE THE PRONOUN "WE", "ARE IN IT TOGETHER", WHILE THE OTHER MORONIC CANDIDATES PLAY TO THEIR EGOS! I AGREE HE NEEDS TO MEET WITH THE GREAT UNWASHED, BUT OBAMA HAS A DIFFERENT ELECTORAL MAP, AND I BELIEVE HE THINKS THE GENERAL ELECTION WILL BE WON IN THE WEST! I ALSO OPINE THAT VOTER DISAFFECTION WITH THE G.O.P. IS SO GREAT IN 2008, THAT WE MAY WITNESS A LANDSLIDE!

Posted by: tom tyskiewicz | May 14, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

"I actually heard Obama on npr report where they interviewed a little kid who had just run for student body president and won. Obama asked her over the radio how many debates she had done with her opponents. She said none. And Obama says "None! Thats sounds good!"
This from a guy who wants to be leader of the free world."
Posted by:

Anonymous poster: You lack a sense of humor, a sense of perspective and, probably, common sense as well. I think you realize it, too, and are ashamed to ID yourself. Good luck in life with those handicaps.

Posted by: edwcorey | May 14, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

And quit wasting time with this late vote-counting nonsense. Why don't you address Hillary and the tort-reform bill she co-sponsored with Obama?

Hello? We can't hear you!

Posted by: bondjedi | May 14, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

"The fact that HC was denied the right to claim Indiana as victory at 9 pm during the news cycle and for almost 24 hours all we heard about was N Carolina b/c they were supposedly still counting Indiana votes at 1 am was more then suspicious. It smelled of Chicago and Teamster type politics of the worst sort."

Another lie, almost as lame as the tall-tales you have been spinning about Obama thuggery in Texas. CBS called Indiana for Hillary well before the wee hours, right around 9:00. Try again, Leichtman.

Besides, if Hillary wanted to declare victory, why didn't she just go ahead and do it? I don't think she needs Tim Russert's clearance.

Posted by: bondjedi | May 14, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

LABC: we get it, You and the Obama worshipers here do not care one iota about the 17 million HC supporters and expect us to just bend over in Nov. Think again.

Posted by: Leich
*******************************
That is not entirely accurate...I just wish you,personally, with your johnny one note attacks,would get bent. You have a choice, vote for Obama, vote for McCain, or sit this one out.

Frankly, if you are so short-sighted and spiteful that you are going to stomp off, mumbling insults because your candidate lost, then I say to you what I say to my teenager " go to your room and when you calm down, then we can talk". Her maturity level is a little higher, but it usually works.

Posted by: LABC | May 14, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

"I need to get ready for the swearing in now."

That's how he acts! I swear to God, for everyone saying Hillary thought she'd be coronated, it sure seems like Obama's the one who thinks he should just walk right into the Oval Office. What, me? have to answer questions? Charlie, George, didn't you get the memo? You were supposed to ask Hillary all the tough ones.

I actually heard Obama on npr report where they interviewed a little kid who had just run for student body president and won. Obama asked her over the radio how many debates she had done with her opponents. She said none. And Obama says "None! Thats sounds good!"

This from a guy who wants to be leader of the free world.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 14, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

kreuz_missile Are you at Obama headquarters with bonjedi ?????

Posted by: Hello | May 14, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

I can see all the Obamaniacs are out in full force today


hhhmmm


You are all going to get a rude awakening - It is clear. Obama is an extremely weak candidate - West Virginia is telling your party something that you Obamaniacs refuse to see -

The latte liberals out there are pathetic.

I really do not care anymore. You can have your Obama Convention - however you will have some hang-over after...


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 14, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman:

All I'm saying is that if you vote for McCain, you'll be supporting tort reform as well. Frankly, who you choose to vote for is none of my business, but if tort reform is your major issue, then you should consider voting "none of the above".

From previous posts, though, health care seems to be a big issue for you -- do you think BHO's or McC's health care platform more closely resembles HRC's?

Posted by: mnteng | May 14, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

As for youth turnout, if he can really, really get them out, it would be the equivalent of an electoral nuclear weapon.

Posted by: OD | May 14, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Going to W.Va isn't going to do the trick. Obama needs to find a white VP surrogate and send him/her to Appalachia.

If Obama could cure cancer with the touch of his hand, they still wouldn't give him the time of day in Appalachia.

Obama must work on Black, Hispanic and youth turnout. All of these groups have historically low turnout, thus plenty of room to improve. Each 10% increase in Black turnout will boost Obama by a useful 1% in Nov, and the distribution of blacks favours him, as many are located in states he hopes to pick up (VA, NC, SC, OH, LA, MO).

Posted by: OD | May 14, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

genY owes no apologies, yea many of them have been abusive towards their parents this election cycle.
Posted by: Leichtman | May 14, 2008 11:30 AM

But you seem to continue to ignore that the abuse has gone both ways. Keep looking at one side of the agrument. Continue to ignore the other side of the coin. Keep dismissing those with valid opposing viewpoints as naive or inexperienced or ignorant. Continue to refuse to work with others, keep partisanship alive.

This mindset is old, tired and thankfully finished.

Posted by: JNoel002 | May 14, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

LABC: we get it, You and the Obama worshipers here do not care one iota about the 17 million HC supporters and expect us to just bend over in Nov. Think again.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 14, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Proud, I already answered like 8 questions. Can I eat my waffle now? I need to get ready for the swearing in now.

Posted by: snObama | May 14, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

jk5432 you hypocritically claim you are not insulting me and never have and then you make a personal swipe.

The fact that HC was denied the right to claim Indiana as victory at 9 pm during the news cycle and for almost 24 hours all we heard about was N Carolina b/c they were supposedly still counting Indiana votes at 1 am was more then suspicious. It smelled of Chicago and Teamster type politics of the worst sort.

Don't believe me and think no one saw that as a possible turning point in an election which Obama predicted not only that he would win Indiana but that it should be the tie breaker, ask the 5 mayors in the towns that surround Gary. One of them was furious and said so on CNN, felt he had been gamed by the Gary mayor who promised he would deliver Indiana for Obama and obviously had a hard time trying to find enough additional thousand of ballots to stuff the ballot box with to change the outcome.

The Lake County mayor was on CNN all night and was furious that all of the votes from his town and from 5 other surrounding towns were turned in at 7:30 pm but refused by the Gary mayor to be released until the next day. Minor coincidence that he was not only an Obama supporter but that he guaranteed he would deliver Indiana for Obama.Just a coincidence, right?

If you think that vote tampering and playing games to make sure and keep HC from announcing an early Indiana win did not effect the news cycle, then you are truly naive. I and many people in the campaign saw that stunt as a turning point in the nomination process which I am sure that Obama worshipers see as the New Politics.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 14, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

I don't need your votes, rubes. Kos and move on will deliver. the haters love me.

Posted by: snObama | May 14, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

mnteng "And he gets confused sometimes (Shia v. Sunni, etc"

OK, I've had about enough of this relentless narrative. First of all, have ANY of you ever flown over to Iraq and expereienced the extreme jet lag that ensues? On top of that, he is placed in front of tv cameras as soon as he gets off the plane...on that particular visit, he had been jetting from country to country for days in a row. Let me tell you, the jet lag is severe.

The fact that McCain allows cameras to always roll and reporters to always have access just shows us how open a guy he is, honest and frank.

Then we have Barack Obama, who can't remember which state he's in ("what state are we in, again?") , gets facts completely wrong ("Ten thousand people died -- an entire town destroyed" when on 12 people died) and can't remember how many states there are in the union ("I've already visited 57 states with one more to go"), all this from a young guy who's been taking breaks in the Virgin Islands!

Plus, Obama usually is walled off from the press - he never lets them get close enough to have real dialogue, so he can't get caught making a gaffe. He's very choreographed- Obama's the Dancing With the Candidates contestant. Rehearsed, telepromted and choreographed for the masses.

I am sick of the Obama supporters excusing all of his misstatements, but pouncing relentlessly on McCain. Obama supporters try to say he's just tired and fatigued, but he hasn't been doing anywhere near the traveling as has John McCain, or even Hillary for that matter.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 14, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Jesus, Leichtman - this list of grievances is your contribution? Obama and his supporters and a portion of the state of Indiana owes you some sort of apology? You and the facts do not eat the same table often, do you?

Posted by: LABC | May 14, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

'either town hall meetings or round tables with Charlie Rose would beat the heck out of the so-called "debate" format. We might get civics lessons out of them instead of sloganeering. It would be difficult for either of these men, IMHO, to stay "scripted" in these more natural settings.'
----------------------
Both McCain and Obama are bad when they go off script. You could clearly see it when Obama did that long Q & A with the press after his Wright fiasco. He comes off as too haulting and he stammers really badly.

McCain is just getting too old, he is clearly way passed his game and either Hillary or Obama will wipe the floor with him.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | May 14, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Interviews with West Virginians leaving the polls showed some profound weaknesses that could haunt the Illinois senator in the fall. More than half said they would be dissatisfied if Obama was the nominee. Half believe he shares the views of the Rev. Wright, and more than half said he does not share their values. More than half also said that he is not honest and trustworthy. Just under half of the Clinton voters said they would not support Obama in the fall.

Posted by: Moron Dowd | May 14, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

mnteng, either town hall meetings or round tables with Charlie Rose would beat the heck out of the so-called "debate" format. We might get civics lessons out of them instead of sloganeering. It would be difficult for either of these men, IMHO, to stay "scripted" in these more natural settings.

I agree that BHO does a set-piece speech better than a town hall, BUT HE DOES A TOWN HALL BETTER THAN HE DEBATES, so he might agree.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 14, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Obama needs to do one thing to win the election:

Deliver 3 or 4 HUGE speeches on the economy that

1) Outline the problems
2) Give specific solutions that are easy to understand

If he hammers away at the economy in a big way, He will be president.

McCain is totally clueless about this issue and Obama will win over a lot of voters if they realise it is in their financial interest to elect him.

Posted by: Brendan | May 14, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Watching "Team B. O. " the other evening ,the media annointed one snapped off a brief remark to his stage of stepford supporters," We are going to end iraq and win in afghan and get to the countrys needs",,wouldnt I love to hear the afghan plan or which military advisors came up with it. The russians couldnt do it with 90% more troops in ten years as everyone else in history couldnt. AS usual with B o there will be no media followup etc.

Posted by: mcnertny | May 14, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Stop trying to make Obama something he's not. All these suggestions quoted by Chris are the worn-out Washington cliches on how to win elections by pandering to the various lobbies and pressure groups. Obama needs to continue being Obama. That's how he got to where he is. There is no need for advice from those who think in Hillary-like terms. Leave him alone.

Munir in Oregon

Posted by: Munir
***************************
Great post - Team Obama has some very astute folks in there and they seem to know what they are doing. I thought the Goldberg article was insightful but frankly, people are more concerned by our economy. Cheesy plays to certain demographics (who could stand to educate themselves, btw) is why Clinton is where she is.

Posted by: LABC | May 14, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

McCain scored with an unheard of 70 percent of the Hispanic vote in his last Senate re-election bid in Arizona.

If McCain can get just 50% support among Hispanics in the national election, McCain could win the White House.

Obama may get of 100% black votes but he will have hard time even getting simple majority of Latino votes in the general election.

McCain can win California, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado and Florida.

Thanks to DNC quota system, we are looking at another four-more-years of Bush in the White House again.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 14, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

"Obama has wavered somewhat about whether or not he will participate in the public financing system in the general election."
There is no functioning FEC, and the Senate Republicans are assuring that there will not be -- perhaps because McCain already broke the rules in the primary, and they don't want there to be a body capable of judging him for that.
Without a body to issue the federal money, neither campaign can go the federal-financing route.

Posted by: Frank Palmer | May 14, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Leichtman, you went into hiding the last time you were presented with "Making Patient Safety the Centerpiece of Medical Liability Reform," from the NEJM. Here's the link, although I know you're familiar with it: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/21/2205

Why don't you report back to us on it, and tell us what Senator Obama's co-author (hint: it's not John McCain) has to say about tort reform.

Posted by: bondjedi | May 14, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Revisit the Rust Belt... by proxy. There has been demonstrated a demographic that, although democratic, has thus far been unwilling to support Obama. He would be benefitted by identifying suitable hi-profile supporters (think the Oprah of Nascar, etc... Rachel Ray or Sandry Lee come to mind) that would provide an increased level of comfort for those demographics to consider their support. I don't think Obama and his message alone will do the trick. The proxies are a path to legitimacy.

Posted by: medhat | May 14, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Leichtman wrote: "I don't find any of my proposals as being an unreasonable outreach to his opponents." Let's take a look at a few of these:

"1. His repudiation of his comments to Chris Wallace how he supports comprehensive tort reform;"

Ah, so you request a complete turn-around by the candidate on a significant issue that appeals to independents. Don't you remember that wind surfing commercial?

"2. Placing HC in some important capacity to fix his flawed healthcare proposal;"

And here we have a complete cave-in on one of the most significant issues. Could it possibly be that he believes his plan has a better chance of passing?

"3. Selecting either HC or Joe Biden as his running mate"

Biden as VP? Great guy, but what does he bring to the general election? Kaine, Rendell, and Strickland are all governors of swing states. All are twofers. Biden's a nofer.

"4. Admitting he was wrong to block a revote in Michigan and Pa."

Perhaps because he didn't? You must have failed to read the analysis that he'd still have a healthy delegate lead even if Michigan and Florida were seated.

7. Humility by Obama and the end of comments like "I give a really great speech don't I?"

Oh, yes. Let's see him tone down the oratory that won him the nomination. That's what we need. A Michael Dukakis style campaign on competence.

And just a couple of the requested apologies ...

"8. GenY Obam supporters admitting to their parents they have been over the top and let us down by refusing to being fully engaged in '04 to stop W."

So, now it's not Obama who has to apologize to you. It's AN ENTIRE GENERATION! Like that's going to happen. How about Kerry let us down by not responding to the swift boat attack. Did he learn nothing from Clinton's (Bill's) instant responses?

"9. A full apology by the Gary mayor and Indiana teamsters for their holding votes til 2 am to deliberately undermine the results of the Indiana primary."

It was the 2% margin, not the late votes. Had Clinton racked up large margins in her portions of the state, the outcome would never have been in doubt.

BB

Posted by: Fairlington Blade | May 14, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

JNoel002 posts:
"I think Obama needs to be very careful in regards to denying public funding, if that is what he decides to do. That could become a very big issue for McCain in the general and he could hammer Obama constantly on it. I still think Obama might need to bite the bullet and play within the system or work out an agreement with McCain on parameters."

This is a non-issue; all Obama has to point out is that he's been and will continue getting "public funding" - the more than a million small donations from John and Jane Q Public, the same folks who marked their returns to have funds put aside for the GE election account; he can then close the deal by pointing out that his way means that no one who didn't want to see him become President would be forced to donate funds to him, which would be the case (for both candidates of course) from getting his funds from the general fund.

End of issue. Mccain can belabor it all he wants, but simply pointing out that he has the same opportunity to collect only from his backers, and that the money in the general fund would remain there, collecting interest, makes Obama look good and McCain both a sore loser and a fund-collecting wimp in comparison to Obama. Don't you think most of the people out there are tired of these non-issues being raised?

Posted by: JK5432 | May 14, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

People calm down... You know, Leichtman reminds me of the Jewish Hillary-surrogate and former-special-counsel-to-Bill Clinton during the Lewinski scandal, Lenny Davis.

Lenny Davis is sounding more and more like a Republican than Democrat these days. Accusing Obama of denying Michigan and Florida of re-votes is total bullsh$t!

Let me take a wild guess Leichtman...are you Jewish?

Whatever happened to talking about the issues that matter in this campaign between Hillary and Obama? The reason why they don't any more (other than the recent "Gas Tax Holiday" issue) is because Hillary and Obama share 90% or more the same view on many issues they voted on while in the senate, so politics of distraction kick into full gear. Side-show issues like Bosnia sniper-fire, bitter-gate, and Rev. Wright take center stage due to the lack of major policy difference between the two!

Posted by: AJ | May 14, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

MarkInAustin:

I was thinking about the town hall idea -- it's a great idea for the voters, but I'm not sure it's that great for BHO and McC.

BHO has a bit of "John Kerry" disease. He can't seem to answer questions in the sort of direct way that plays well in those forums. This would be a problem with the "Ask Obama" tour as well. He probably thinks too much about the answers while he's giving them, making sure he equivocates enough not to get himself into trouble later.

McC is better at answering questions directly, but then he has the tendency to come out with weird, off-the-cuff answers ("100 years", "Bomb Iran"). And he gets confused sometimes (Shia v. Sunni, etc.). But if he could limit these blunders, he'd probably come off better in the town halls -- which may be reason enough for BHO to avoid accepting the invitation.

Finally, the joint townhalls would give McC some "free" publicity. Given his fundraising advantage, it's unlikely that BHO's campaign would want to cede that political advantage in the race for the Presidency.

Of course, those are all reasons not to do it. The best reason to do it is for the benefit of the voters who care enough to be fully informed before they go to the polls in November. Particularly if the questions are not pre-screened by the campaigns.

Posted by: mnteng | May 14, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

mnteng, If you are inclined to do so, please send me an email at Mark_in_Austin@gmail.com.
No obligation accrues. :-)

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 14, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

There is a new website called 350.com or .org, I am not sure which, that states we have reached the tipping point in production of carbon dioxide. 350 is the number that will give us the world we have lived in and anything above that is cause for alarm. We are above that. Maybe Senator Obama should propose looking at this tipping number and gaging our progress or lack of same and truely facing the numbers.

Posted by: L. Bosworth | May 14, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

mnteng and the fact that Obama stands with Rs about tort reform and how proud he is to being a leading voice for it does not impress me and why most local lawyers, trial lawyers and criminal defense lawyers have opposed Obama.

genY owes no apologies, yea many of them have been abusive towards their parents this election cycle. So they get a free pass for claiming they didn't have 5 minutes in 2004 to stop W. Maybe had there been a draft they would have thought differently, but the ugly comments here calling boomers, old, whithered, dinosaurs is not exactly what we see as supposedly healing of the party. But those concepts are foreign to his supporters b/c they really seem to get a charge insulting seniors, women and the middle class dreaming up every ugly insult that comes to them.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 14, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

My fellow Texans have chipped in from at least San Angelo, San Antonio, and Houston this morning.

I must say that Tony C. at 8;45A showed more in the way of common sense than any single other poster in recent memory. His advice works for any executive, professional, tradesperson, or candidate. I will repeat it. Get a good night's sleep every night.

"...Sleep that knits up the raveled sleave of care, " - Lady Macbeth, exhorting her husband in a different context, but it is so true.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 14, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Leichtman bellows:
"your corrupt Gary Mayor holding up voter results he received at 7:30 pm by 5 County Mayors until 2 am pretty much did it for me"

I can't recall a single non-belligerent, Obama/Obama supporters disparaging post from you in all the time I've been wandering around the blogs here. But this comment has to be the most moronic of all of the unintelligent comments you've made. Who cares if the vote count was delayed? Can you come up with one real live intelligent rationale for why that mattered? Did it affect the voting in Indiana? Of course, not; voting was over, so the tally couldn't have had any effect. Did it affect the voting in NC? No, they were done voting even before Indiana finished.

So what, exactly, did any delay have on anything relative to the primary, Leichtman, that it has your panies in such a twist? That it delayed the anouncement that Clinton barely squeaked by in Indiana, despite the polls of the prior week having her ahead by significantly more than 2%. Is that what's bothering you? If so, who cares? Exactly what negative effect did it have on the candidate decision-making process?

The answer, of course, is none. So, bellow on, Leichtman - but you really need to start taking your meds again. This "complaint" is even more off the wall than usual.

Posted by: jk5432 | May 14, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Leichtman, Nexxus7 is your next challenge...

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 14, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

"as I continue to read true garbage from Obama supporters calling the Clintons racist I will have nothing to do with their campaign as will up to some 28% of reported HC supporters."

Again, you pulled that number from thin air. How can you with a straight face proclaim to speak for all HRC supporters?

If anything, this campaign has proved that, even when presented with an overwhelmingly superior candidate running an efficient campaign, there is a minority of this country (28%?) that won't vote for him because he is black. Thank God for the other 72% that have their heads screwed on straight and can see what Hillary's deadenders and the hard-core bigots refuse to look at.

Posted by: bondjedi | May 14, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

"Obama needs to provide direct answers about his associations with questionable figures like Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, and most importantly, Tony Rezko. All undermine his central argument against HRC and John McCain for that matter, that he alone possesses superior judgment. I'm also awaiting definitive policy details beyond the position papers linked to his web site. A man who voted present 129 times as a state senator needs to show how he would lead beyond offering textbook left-of-center policies long a staple of the Democratic Party. How will an amateur like Obama transcend the mold of supporters like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and George McGovern?"?


Wow, someone sure has their talking points down.

1. He has addressed his connections openly iwth each of those people, time and time again.

2. Details beyond the policy papers on his website? Those things are full of specific, what the heck more do you want, a five hour talk-a-thon every day on each specific issue?

3. How did an amateur like Obama defeat the inevitable nomination of the Clinton machine? He's that good, that organized, and that prepared for the tasks ahead of him, that's how.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 14, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

It is such a waste of time that these "assumption" blogs are being written. Wait for a winner to materialize! Not one delegate has voted yet! You do understand that the delegates must pick who they think can win?

Hillary is the only candidate that can win a national election. Or do you think that a country that is 83% white will elect a racist black man with a Muslim name and no experience who's campaign is based on "hope and change"?

The media is setting Obama up for a huge embarrassment. Oh heck---- Obama's arrogance is also setting him up for a huge fall.

Maybe the media will start reporting actual political events fairly for once....NOT.

Posted by: Nexxus7 | May 14, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Leichtman - If you can't stand the heat...

Posted by: bondjedi | May 14, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Leichtman, most of your suggestions are good and will probably be heeded in some form, but if you want to see Obama supporters stop treating Hillary supporters the way theydo, start making the case to other Hillary supporters that this is in fact over.

This isn't a "virtual tie" as WoW keeps putting it (although he is right about people seeing candidates differently at different points in the race- I know a number of people from California who voted for Clinton who really wish they could take that one back). Selectively saying some states are important (now, all of a sudden, WV is the most important state in the election? Seriously?). The gap is now 153 pledged delegates; even throwing in Michigan and Florida at the full Clinton value (giving Obama the undeclared, which would be the absolute best deal Clinton would ever get) it's still an 80 pledged delegate gap, and Clinton only takes the lead in popular votes if you assume Obama gets 0 votes in that stat enad you exclude half of the Caucus states. One week from today, Obama will have clinched the pledged delegate victory. Calling the election at this point isn't denying anyone their chance to vote, it is like calling the 1984 election for Reagan before the Hawai'i votes were counted- they would still count, but they weren't going to change the results.

There is no reasonable metric by which she leads, and the arguments she and her supporters are making to say that she has the stronger case just serve to tear at the heart of the Democratic coalition. This is a two way street, and reconciliation must work both ways.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 14, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

remind me of that truth if your family should ever be confronted by a serious medical mal practice situation or getting struck by a drunk driver and being told tough luck, that folks like John Edwards are not real lawyers.

once again, as long as I continue to read true garbage from Obama supporters calling the Clintons racist I will have nothing to do with their campaign as will up to some 28% of reported HC supporters.

Their campaign manager has asked them to stop the vitriol, but from what I read here, the hatred by his followers is as real as it was a year ago. Many have warned that these tactics undermine their candidate's message but it is obvious they don't care.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 14, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Clinton deadenders - Mike Huckabee may sympathize with you, because he won in WV also.

Since Hillary is going to lose this one, maybe you can storm the GOP convention and force a Hillary-Huckabee ticket.

Posted by: bondjedi | May 14, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

"All undermine his central argument against HRC and John McCain for that matter, that he alone possesses superior judgment."

You mean like the sort of judgement Clinton and McCain showed in support of the War? Hillary won't even admit she was wrong to vote yay...as for McCain, well, he's old, I can see how he became befuddled by the situation.

Obama Never supported the War...he has shown superior judgment indeed.

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | May 14, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Next move for team Obama include closing down these primaries before the decision is made on how to seat Florida and Michigan delegates. A committee meeting is scheduled for May 31. I understand that the number of delegates needed to win the nomination willl increase from the 2025 number now if they are seated. If that is true, now I understand why Obama is in such a hurry to get those super delegates to give him their support NOW.

Posted by: HarryF | May 14, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

8. GenY Obam supporters admitting to their parents they have been over the top and let us down by refusing to being fully engaged in '04 to stop W.
Posted by: Leichtman | May 14, 2008 11:01 AM

This might be your craziest idea yet. The fact that you expect anyone (not to mention GenY) to blindly follow any candidate the Dem's nominate is borderline insanity. GenY wasn't fully engaged because they had no reason to be. Kerry was a terrible candidate. The last two elections are the reason GenY has become so involved in this election. Because things have gotten so bad and so partisan, GenY is sick of the lesser of two evils elections'. The youth vote finally has a candidate who understands politics the last 20 years cannot continue. GenY doesn't owe an apology to anyone.

Posted by: JNoel002 | May 14, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Leichtman:

If you are concerned with BHO being a proponent of tort reform, you may want to reconsider voting for McC.

From The Club for Growth website:

Tort Reform

The American economy suffers from excessive litigation which increases the cost of doing business and slows economic growth. The Club for Growth supports major reforms to our tort system to restore a more just and less costly balance in tort litigation.

Senator McCain's record on tort reform is generally positive. These votes include:

* Sponsored the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 which sought to curb lawsuits by shifting suits from state to federal courts, by requiring judges to review all coupon settlements, and by limiting attorneys' fees in non-cash settlements[65]
* Voted for a bill that would bar lawsuits against manufacturers, distributors, dealers and importers of firearms[66]
* Voted for a bill that would place caps on damage awards in medical malpractice suits against obstetricians and gynecologists[67]
* Voted for a motion to proceed to a bill that would cap non-economic and punitive damages in medical malpractice suits[68]

Posted by: mnteng | May 14, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

I especially think that the Mid-East tour idea has merit: Obama needs to reassure our Lukkudnik friends that a President Obama faced with all our Domestic problems will make a special effort to protect Israel. (although, unlike Mrs Clinton, I'm sure Obama will at least think about it before he pushes the "obliterate" button.)

Mr Lawyerman, why don't you just accept defeat and start pitching a real power position for Hillary: Supreme Court Justice.

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | May 14, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Obama needs to provide direct answers about his associations with questionable figures like Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, and most importantly, Tony Rezko. All undermine his central argument against HRC and John McCain for that matter, that he alone possesses superior judgment. I'm also awaiting definitive policy details beyond the position papers linked to his web site. A man who voted present 129 times as a state senator needs to show how he would lead beyond offering textbook left-of-center policies long a staple of the Democratic Party. How will an amateur like Obama transcend the mold of supporters like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and George McGovern?

Posted by: buckybacker97 | May 14, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

How did he block the revotes? The national party said they wouldn't pay for them, and the state parties said they couldn't afford it themselves since they'll need money for the general election.

Posted by: jhnnywalkr | May 14, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Poor Billary fans, in the end when the votes are all tallied and Obama still comes in with the MAJORITY, it will be you sad pathetic followers of Billary who are in the minority.
Yet, excuses will still be your only source of comfort.

Have fun with those excuses and the off the wall reasonings, may they keep you cool through the summer.

I love how now that Billary knows they will not get the Majority, which is what democracy is all about, the reasoning shifts to swing states. In the end it is about numbers, not hypotheticals, or making or bending the rules as you go. What a shame, I hope Billary wins the rest of the contests and she still will be the loser.

This is why they are calling for her to drop out, simple mathematics rule Billary out,not using some crazy swing state argument. Hillary is calling for the majority of legal votes to not count. A vote for Hillary is not a vote for democracy, its a vote for egotistical pride and selfishness.

Posted by: Sore-Losers | May 14, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

CC writes "Another suggestion: Share a meal with working class voters -- maybe via a visit to a workplace at lunchtime."

Great idea...have him tour a tank manufacturing plant and ride around in one with a neat helmet on, then take a smoke break with the guys.

Alternately, he could stop stage-managing every appearance with added white people in the background and start being more open with the press corps. He's been very closed off up to now, stage-managed and teleprompted.

Americans deserve to see the real Obama; the one who blurts out "typical white people" and "they cling to guns and religion" when forced to ad-lib.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 14, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Maybe Obama backs tort reform because he is a real lawyer and not an ambulance-chaser.

Posted by: TheTruth | May 14, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

"The Clintons were there, Barry couldn't find the time."

You're right, Leichtman. Showing up in a lame attempt to cadge votes then falling asleep shows a sensitivity of the highest order. Almost as sensitive as cherry-picking poll numbers to separate the country into hard-working, white people and a lazy everyone else. How many votes did that get Hillary?

Not the ones that matter. Clinton's crushing victory in WV flushed two more supers out this morning -- both of whom announced that they are backing Obama. Niiiice.

Keep trying, Leichtman.

Posted by: bondjedi | May 14, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

I like the advice given to the Obama campaign, but I would add that Obama get more comfortable talking about the issues and details relevant to some his swing states.

Obama ran a positive and civil campaign in West Virginia. Although he did not aggressively campaign there as did Bill, Chelsea, and Hillary, Obama did set up a foundation to work on for the general election.

A two or three week vacation is needed by the Obama campaign and volunteers this summer to recharge the batteries!

Posted by: AJ | May 14, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

hold that tiger: I will wait for the following:

1. His repudiation of his comments to Chris Wallace how he supports comprehensive tort reform;
2. Placing HC in some important capacity to fix his flawed healtcare proposal;
3. Selecting either HC or Joe Biden as his running mate;
4. Admitting he was wrong to block a revote in Michigan and Pa.
5. The end of the vitriol of his supporters towards their opponent;
6. Rejection by his campaign and his supporters of calling the Clintons racists (which we still read here this morning, again);
7. Humility by Obama and the end of comments like "I give a really great speech don't I?"
8. GenY Obam supporters admitting to their parents they have been over the top and let us down by refusing to being fully engaged in '04 to stop W.
9. A full apology by the Gary mayor and Indiana teamsters for their holding votes til 2 am to deliberately undermine the results of the Indiana primary.

I have never ever voted for a R in my life and have never missed voting in any election. The concept of voting for McCain turns my stomach, but unless I see at least some of these steps being taken by your campaign and supporters that is exactly what I intend to do.

I could care less about Rev Wright and the stupid flag pin, totally non issues, but his statement about being a proponent of tort reform is a nonstarter to me and most of my lawyer colleagues who heard his statement to Chris Wallace.

I don't find any of my poposals as being an unreasonable outreach to his ponnents.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 14, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

"most notably the handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina"

Yeah...pictures like this one, taken the morning after Hurricane Katrina, won't be so helpful in that regard...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/images/20050829-5_p082905pm-0125-515h.jpg

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 14, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Chris wrote: "One intriguing suggestion: Launch a series of 'Ask Barack' forums in which the candidate takes on all comers, seeking to answer questions about issues like religion and patriotism that could be major hurdles in a general election."

Excellent idea. But yesterday the Washington Post ran a story on racism against Obama. It must be said that certain questions or beliefs will never be spoken in a public forum. If Obama is to "take on all comers," he may only get to address unspoken racism if the questioner is anonymous - i.e., writes an email, calls in, or records a message.

It's well documented that in the privacy of the voting booth, a significant percentage of people will decide that they cannot vote for a candidate whom they perceive to be, uh, "different" from themselves - even if they told people face-to-face that they could.

Posted by: dognabbit | May 14, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Stop trying to make Obama something he's not. All these suggestions quoted by Chris are the worn-out Washington cliches on how to win elections by pandering to the various lobbies and pressure groups. Obama needs to continue being Obama. That's how he got to where he is. There is no need for advice from those who think in Hillary-like terms. Leave him alone.

Munir in Oregon

Posted by: Munir | May 14, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

I believe there is a "Gray Range" in the democratic race - it is the range of delegates in which perhaps there are inflated delegate totals, the disputes with Florida and Michigan are there and the caucus state anomalies are there.


Up to this point, let's say from the beginning of March until now the question has been: can Hillary show strength can she put together enough wins to pull up into that "Gray Range" - because if she could not, the race would have been over.

However the answer is yes - she is in the midst of pulling into the "Gray Range" She has won Ohio, Texas Pennsylvania, Indiana and West Virginia - more importantly she will be in that "Gray Range" in which she leads in at least some of the popular vote categories.

The race is essentially a tie - and the superdelegates have to be the tiebreaker.

If the supderdelegates do go with Obama, they would be wise to put it in that context, to tell the Hillary supporters that there is a tie and a decision has to be made - that is some political cover for them.

The truth is the front-loading of the primaries did a disservice to the democrats - the danger was always there that the electorate would jump at a candidate and that would be it. The democrats, not fully realizing the implications of John Edwards leaving the race, leaped at Obama -

That Leap took place right before a set of primaries which played to Obama's strength -

The truth of the matter is this: people vote differently when they perceive the candidate in different positions in the race - some people probably did vote for Obama on Supertuesday as a protest vote - not wanting to vote for Hillary - they voted for Obama as sort of an anti-Hillary vote.


That dynamic perhaps would not have been there if they realized that Obama was on the verge of a majority - and that their votes were actually putting him over the top.

Voters NOW realize their votes for Obama is going to put him over the top for the nomination - the dynamic is different.

It words both ways, sure some of these votes now are anti-Obama, not racist, the voter simply doesnt think Obama is the right candidate, so they vote for Hillary - not necessarily a pro-Hillary vote, but an anti-Obama one.

I just have the suspicion that if the Super Tuesday states were all to vote next week, we would get different results - the candidates could be evaluated in the context of a close race

Clearly superTuesay should be at the end of the schedule, however that might ensure a multi-candidate field spliting the delegates and all going to the Convention - the primaries are broken this year, and we will see - the wrong candidate may be nominated producing a disaster for the democrats.


.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 14, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

"Hillary Rodham Clinton's convincing victory over Barack Obama Tuesday in West Virginia's Democratic primary virtually ensures that she will remain in the race through the formal end of the nomination fight in June, despite her decidedly long odds of winning her party's nod."

OK -- this is pretty weak writing. First off, Hillary's win was entirely predictable. I called it before the Texas and Ohio primaries (matter of fact, I think I predicted Clinton would win PA, WV and KY after WI). So _nothing's changed_. Anyone at all paying attention knows this. She's _been_ in the race to stay ever since TX and OH. Her "hardworking white people" crack showed that she's not going to be Obama's VP, because that made her toxic to blacks. Her refusal to compromise _at all_ on seating the MI delegation, shows she's in it to win, and she'll go to the convention.

There are compelling reasons for Clinton to hang around. She can only get repaid for her campaign loan until the election; after that, she eats it, and $11 million's a pretty tidy meal. And after the primaries end, her expenses drop sharply, but she can still continue to raise funds to pay off her overall $20 million debt. The Obama campaign has signaled they're not helping her on that, so she needs to be out there as a "viable" candidate; people don't give to losers (although she'll still be NY Senator, so she is in a position to return favors). Again, she can hope for a bolt from above that renders Obama hors de combat. And there's always the torpedo Obama in 2008 for a 2012 run angle.

Posted by: gbooksdc | May 14, 2008 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Yawn! Ho! Hum! What Liberal Loser Empty
Suit Phony Barack Hussein Obama Didn't
Drop Out By This Morning? Give It Up Obama
and your Obamabots And Accept Reality That
Barack Obama IS UnElectable! NOBAMA!

Posted by: Ralphinphnx | May 14, 2008 10:51 AM | Report abuse

"McCain is playing within the system and, if Obama opts out, is likely to use it as a way to show that the Illinois senator says one thing or does another."

I think Obama needs to be very careful in regards to denying public funding, if that is what he decides to do. That could become a very big issue for McCain in the general and he could hammer Obama constantly on it. I still think Obama might need to bite the bullet and play within the system or work out an agreement with McCain on parameters.

Posted by: JNoel002 | May 14, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Hey Chris,

I can't get the link to last Friday's line to work, I've tried to get there several ways. Can you look into it? thanks!

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/05/the_friday_line_veepstakes_1.html

Posted by: jls | May 14, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Leichman - with each day you sound more cranky and tired. Perhaps you need some time away..... I certainly need some

Posted by: nclwtk | May 14, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

So Leichtman, being the big wig Democratic operative that you say you are, I'm sure that we can count on you to join Hillary in supporting our Party's nominee Barack Obama in the Fall?

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | May 14, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

I must say, I am really impressed with most of the feedback in the comments, particularly, the ones that exhibit insights that are relative to the article and task at hand. I am not hung up on who the consultants are the ideas are good despite where they came from. I really like the idea of Senator Obama traveling to the Middle East. I agree with the comment on the Listen Obama tour. There is also some merit to including a Ask Obama session as well - - maybe a let's talk. There is always value in the candidate indulging in the daily aspects of people's lives so attendance and mingling at the "regular folks" venue is a must. Also a must is the idea by the commenter of Senator Obama and the team being on a preventive sleep deprivation schedule. I do know that the Senator is big on eating healthy, so I am sure he will continue to do so - - the sleep deprivation is a big issue. I have observed him and really been concerned about him getting rest, as well as, the staff.

I am in agreement on the staff being on top of everything. This is an awesome team that Senator Obama has assembled and as far as the suggestion to bring in others, I am also aware that they have been open and have done so during the campaign. They have done so in a way that it has not been a lot of drama to elevate it. Senator Obama is very explicit about the "no drama" issue and always interested in including the input of others, so I am confident that he, staff and advisor will embrace any additions to the team they deem necessary.

Posted by: Dee, Washington, DC | May 14, 2008 10:43 AM | Report abuse

interesting you would bring up the MLK ceremony. The Clintons were there, Barry couldn't find the time.Neither could he find the time to travel to N.O for the travis Smiley outreach, oh yes he dared to oppose barry too didn't he. We are all aware that your campaign has deliberately promoted the concept that the Clintons are racists. You continue it even today even when your campaign manager is desperately begging his supporters to shut up and end the vitriol towards your opponent and her supporters. Tell that to my Cngresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. Since she supports HC she too must be a closet racist.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 14, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

interesting you would bring up the MLK ceremony. The Clintons were there, Barry couldn't find the time.Neither could he find the time to travel to N.O for the travis Smiley outreach, oh yes he dared to oppose barry too didn't he. We are all aware that your campaign has deliberately promoted the concept that the Clintons are racists. You continue it even today even when your campaign manager is desperately begging his supporters to shut up and end the vitriol towards your opponent and her supporters. Tell that to my Cngresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. Since she supports HC she too must be a closet racist.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 14, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Your advice is visit a workplace at lunch time? COME ON. And the "democratic consultant" you quoted in the last line was probably on a losing campaign this cycle, huh?

Posted by: Russell | May 14, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

"I think he committed everything he had to winning the nomination, counting on the "anybody but a Republican" vote in November. In the process, he's soured a lot of Democrats who will vote anybody but Obama."

Let me get this straight you, and others who claim to be Democrats will vote for a 72 (if elected) year old man that finds nothing wrong in staying in Iraq for a 100 years, a man who famously kidded, "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," a man who continues to believe that the Free-Market will offer low cost Healthinsurance to all Americans despite all the evidence to the contrary, a Man who wants to appoint even more Conservative, partisan judges to the Supreme Court, a man who, take note fiscal conservatives, wishes to amplify the tax cuts that Bush gave to the rich, but has given NO indication HOW he will pay for the tax cuts except to say that he will cut the "pork" (hmmm...could some of that pork be in, say, the Food Stamp Program that so many working poor Families with children rely on?), a man who has voted NO on a new GI Bill 4 times so afraid is he of losing his canon fodder for the Iraq, and possibly Iran, War machine...for god'ssakes people, this election is NOT American Idol, it is REAL, it will effect our lives for decades to come (especially in terms of Supreme Court appointments.) Mourn Clinton's Presidental Ambition lost if you must, but NEVER take your eye off the true prize: the fate of Our Republic..

Not to mention that McCain's buddy Bush just told Politico that he gave up Golf to "prove his solidarity" with the families of the soldiers killed in Iraq...un-effing-believable.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 14, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

It would be smart for Obama to trip off to the ME. He should take Joey LIberman with him and leave Joey in Jordan to gfind his own way home.

Posted by: dp355 | May 14, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

yea bonedi I have no idea about the Kerry campaign. That is why I spent 6 weeks in Denver with the Kerry/Salazar legal protection unit, co-ordinated thousands of volunteers to Denver and organized the Denver college out reach program. And exactly what role did you play in the 04 campaign? Oh I forget you were a valuable blogger. And your role in the 2006 Ohio Gubenatorial and Sherrod Brown campaign, or your travel to Richmond to organize the Webb campaign's virtual call center? We would be thrilled to know the detals of your blogging for the Ted Strickland and Jim Webb campaign's activities, they were certainly impressive.

I am sure you approved of the teamsters and Gry mayor holding up Indiana reults they were given at 7:30 til 2 am. And you are perfectly right. Obama won N Carolina by 41% points all of us are aware of that.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 14, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: P Diddy | May 14, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Hey Leichtman, you forgot to mention among Bubba's racial accomplishments his race-baiting in SC (but you have made clear that there is nothing wrong with that) and him falling asleep on the podium during an MLK ceremony this year.

Posted by: TheTruth | May 14, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

I guess my major concern is why so much focuw on West Virginia when Obama has won other states where practically little or no Blacks or Hispanics dominate the population numbers. The media needs to help us focus on the issues rather than the hype of the news stations and their unfair and biased reporting. When we think of problems that organizations go through - the bottom line is - what's in the best interest of the company. So, what's in the best interest of the U.S. - more of the same dictated by a two-party system, the alleged operation chaos stuff coming from Rush or the current state of the union? Thank you.

Posted by: Emilio Williams | May 14, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Leichtman, it is nice to see you have realized the world didn't end even though Hillary isn't going to be the nominee.
You list four former Democratic candidates for President, all who lost and discuss following one strategy or another. However, you missed the point--Obama shouldn't, nor will he, follow any of those strategies. Firstly, he should not follow them because none of them won. Second, the makeup and the constituencies of his electorate are different than those candidates you named. He has brought into the fold many different demographics that are not recently traditional. To dismiss the fact that their is more than one way to win the general election is part of the reason Democrats have had such a difficult time winning.
Hillary was the victor yesterday in West Virginia, but in case you haven't noticed the war is already over.

Posted by: JNoel002 | May 14, 2008 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Leichtman, your sanctimonious blathering and righteous indignation are comical. Read this article...as I said, there is enough stupidity on both sides:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR2008051203014.html

Posted by: P Diddy | May 14, 2008 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Funny to see how Leichtman is accusing the Obama camp of deliberately downplaying WV, while shamelessly rah-rahing according to Clinton spin.

West Virginia has five electoral votes. That's the same amount as UT, NV, and NE, states that Obama won and you downplay. Let me ask you this, and be honest with your answer ... do you even have any idea what an electoral vote or a swing state is? Doesn't seem like it.

Keep trying though. Btw, when Obama opens up a can of whoop-ass in Oregon, remember that it has 7 electoral votes. I'll let you do the research and tell us how many votes PR has.

Posted by: bondjedi | May 14, 2008 10:28 AM | Report abuse

P Diddy why in the world would you think I am on your side when your candidate brags how he supports comprehensive tort reform, delberately blocked revotes in Fla and Michigan(which likely would have denied him the nomination) and your corrupt Gary Mayor holding up voter results he received at 7:30 pm by 5 County Mayors until 2 am pretty much did it for me, but constant references to boomers as old/whithered people and racists, and women as evil shrill monsters was the tipping point; along with being constantly yelled at by Obama supporters, moveon and DFA to either support our guy or leave the party really did it for me. Call me and the HC names like losers, evil, monsters, that should certainly ingratiate your campaign to attarct our supporters. Curious if Axelrod has idea whatsoever how divisive and abusive his upporters are towards his opponent. And I am sure pdiddy you agree that Bill Clinton who's office reinvigorated Harlem, gave a moving euology to Ms King and did more to raise the living standards of the poor is nothing but a racists we have heard repeatedly or that its Ok for your supporters to yell the B word to a 28 year old Chelsea or a former first lady? And your explanation for that ugly behavior towards the Clintons by your campaign and supporters?

Posted by: Leichtman | May 14, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

It is curious to see how many people can demonize the Democrat candidate that they do not support. There are legitimate things to criticize on both sides, and there are character issues to debate. But these are humans who have flaws. Who will make the better president, who will articulate the Democrat platform better (there is not much difference in substance between the two), who will rally America and the world to repair the Republican disaster. These are the key questions. Above all Democrats must avoid making "white working class" a substitute for anti-black.

Posted by: Fulrich | May 14, 2008 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Nice to see Leichtman hasn't given up, still shooting his mouth off about issues he has no idea about. John Kerry? 2004? Get out of here.

Where were you after Hillary got clobbered last week, in states that actually meant something?

Also nice to see that the politics of yesteryear, of segregation and Jim Crow, that Hillary is relying on will not matter for the nomination.

Obama '08!

Posted by: bondjedi | May 14, 2008 10:22 AM | Report abuse

>>> "That should net you around 200 electoral votes."

But once again, you exhibit a tendency to selectively choose only those facts which support your argument.

If Obama were to lose Florida and Ohio, he could STILL win the presidency by picking up Colorado, Missouri, Iowa, and Virginia. All of which could potentially be Obama territory.

Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, and North Carolina are secondary and not necessary.

West Virginia is straight up irrelevant.

Posted by: P Diddy | May 14, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

>>> "Gore has no one to blame but himself."

I agree, this is entirely true. The man couldn't even win his home state (and had he done so, Florida would have been moot).

But I was speaking specifically to the manner in which the Clintons executed her Senate campaign in parallel to Gore's presidential campaign. I wish I could find the link to the "Vanity Fair" article...

Posted by: P Diddy | May 14, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Anyone who knows how the Clintons treated Gore knows full well where Gore stands in this election. He may not state it publicly (yet), but if you've read the "Vanity Fair" article, there's no way you can expect him to harbor anything but ill-will against the Clintons.

Posted by: P Diddy | May 14, 2008 10:02 AM
-------------------------------
It was Gore's very bad move to distant himself from Clinton when he lost, because he thought he'd be tainted by the blue dress. Gore has no one to blame but himself.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | May 14, 2008 10:13 AM | Report abuse

and following the Gore and Kerry strategies of concentrating on Ohio, Fla and W Va should be thrown out of the book and instead according to his supporters, follow the new paradigm of winning truly swing states like Ga, Miss and Utah and giving up on W Va, Arkansas, Ohio and Fla. places he is being roundly dismissed. That should net you around 200 electoral votes.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 14, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse

What is this "your side" nonsense? Aren't we all on the same side: trying to get rid of 8 years of nepotism and incompetence in government?

Leichtman, you can't accuse all these Obama supporters of fanning the flames of dissent and ignorance when you do the same yourself.

Man, I've never seen a bigger sore loser.

Posted by: P Diddy | May 14, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

your side got blown out by 41% of course we could count on your saying this morning that W Va is unimportant b/c your campaign likely will not spend a minute there.Don't bother, they don't share or relate to your candidate's values. And that elitist message you understand will resonate in souther Ohio, western Pa and large segments of Missouri, places that you presume are also unimportant. Instead you should follow the Dukakas/ McGovern strategy of conentrating on large urban inner city voters, that is certainly a wise streategy.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 14, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

"Clinton Extends Her Lead Among Congressional Districts"

Read the full article, and what the Obama campaign doesn't want to talk about at:

http://politicallydrunk.blogspot.com/2008/05/clinton-extends-her-lead-among.html

Support The Obama Truth Week

Posted by: JB | May 14, 2008 10:04 AM | Report abuse

Obama can withdraw from taxpayer-based campaign funding qiute easily, and emphasize a couple of important principles in the process.
For one, he does not need taxpayer assistance to mount a campaign. He can make it on his own. Imagine that, no government subsidies fro a Democrat.
Second, he doesn't need curbs on the influence peddling by deep-pocketed special interests. His money comes from the people, in small donations.
By contrast...McCain, the conservative Republican, actually needs government funding for his campaign.
And, he needs a financial firewall from special interests. But, since the 'Straight Talk Epress' is being driven by special interest lobbyists, the point is largely moot.
McCain is already subject to special interest influences every time he walks into a campaign staff meeting.
Obama simply says he had no idea his campaign would attract so much money from so many people outside the sphere of Washington influence peddlers. And, that he would like the government funds to be re-allocated to paying own the national debt.
McCain has no dream of such problems.

Posted by: JMFulton, Jr. | May 14, 2008 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Anyone who knows how the Clintons treated Gore knows full well where Gore stands in this election. He may not state it publicly (yet), but if you've read the "Vanity Fair" article, there's no way you can expect him to harbor anything but ill-will against the Clintons.

Posted by: P Diddy | May 14, 2008 10:02 AM | Report abuse

I presume that you understand that John Kerry spent weeks and millions in 2004 parked in the nonswing state of W Va because they understood that it was a totally unimportant electoral state.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 14, 2008 9:50 AM

One your making comparisons between two separate election cycles; not to mention the fact that Kerry lost. I don't think Obama should be taking any cues out of the John Kerry playbook.
Obama's constituency is different than Kerry's. McCain's constituncy is different than Bush's. Meaning the election and the "swing states" will change.

Posted by: JNoel002 | May 14, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Citing John Kerry's election strategy as the basis for a defense of your position is probably not the wisest thing to be doing.

Posted by: P Diddy | May 14, 2008 10:00 AM | Report abuse

"McCain is playing within the system and, if Obama opts out, is likely to use it as a way to show that the Illinois senator says one thing OR does another..."
Shouldn't it be AND? Once again, Big Media bias slips in.
-Wm Tate,
http://www.atimelikethis.us/

Posted by: Wm Tate | May 14, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

right. W. Va is not a swing state and neither are Ohio, Fla, Michigan, or Pa. Ask Pres Kerry and former Pres Gore if places like Arkansas, W Va and Fla are less important then true swing states like Utah, Ga and Miss. I presume that you understand that John Kerry spent weeks and millions in 2004 parked in the nonswing state of W Va because they understood that it was a totally unimportant electoral state.right. W. Va is not a swing state and neither are Ohio, Fla, Michigan, or Pa. Ask Pres Kerry and former Pres Gore if places like Arkansas, W Va and Fla are less important then true swing states like Utah, Ga and Miss. I presume that you understand that John Kerry spent weeks and millions in 2004 parked in the nonswing state of W Va because they understood that it was a totally unimportant electoral state.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 14, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse


It's of grave concern when a Democratic candidate is tagged as an elitist for having an Ivy League education, but when someone points out that many Republican candidates are themselves ivy-league graduates with large houses, summer cottages, fancy cars and closets full of designer dresses and crisp tuxedos, it barely warrants a shrug.

Theresa Heinz gets crucified for her millions -- Cindy McCain doesn't.

Democratic candidates have to reveal their spouses' tax records going back many years. Republican candidates don't.

Democrats have a conservative wing. Republicans don't have anything even remotely resembling a liberal wing.

Posted by: double standards | May 14, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Chris,

From the ideas listed by you the trip abroad is truly a great idea. Democrats would see the rock star status he holds outside the U.S.

The second best idea is that he take a break. A full week or ten days rest in some secluded beach or mountain getaway would erase the fatigue he cannot hide.

The staff shuffle is so idiotic it will never happen. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Ditto the money machine. Obama squished Clinton with his superior financial wizardry. Keep the little money machine that could untouched.

Posted by: piktor | May 14, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

All suggestions are good, but can he do anything at all when Hillary is jumping all over the place? and the super delegates are too coward to come out to end this once and for all? My suggestions? Obama or his surrogates should make sure the gap in Kentucky is kept to a minimum, win big in Oregon, Montana and the rest. I do not understand Puerto Rico, but same suggestion as Kentucky. He cannot even attack Hillary at this point!! This party is giving me heartburn.

Posted by: laksa | May 14, 2008 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Barak Obama is a typical politician especially when it comes to his flexible application of what is moral and ethical. Has he ever taken any action that wasn't political in nature? Does this man have any core beliefs?

McCain and Hillary can been shifty at times but their records show there are issues in which they believe so strongly that they have taken courageous moral stands.

Obama's record shows that he stands only for Obama.

Elect him at your peril, America.

Posted by: AndyfromVA | May 14, 2008 9:50 AM | Report abuse

right. W. Va is not a swing state and neither are Ohio, Fla, Michigan, or Pa. Ask Pres Kerry and former Pres Gore if places like Arkansas, W Va and Fla are less important then true swing states like Utah, Ga and Miss. I presume that you understand that John Kerry spent weeks and millions in 2004 parked in the nonswing state of W Va because they understood that it was a totally unimportant electoral state.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 14, 2008 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Wv a Swing State? LOL... the least educated voters in the country?
WV is a throwback to half a century ago. What happens there means virutally nothing in the GE.

Posted by: Nat | May 14, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

When did West Virginia become a "swing state"?

Posted by: JNoel002 | May 14, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

A classy way for Obama to avoid the empty suit label would be to start floating some specifics about his purported administration:

1) Get Hillary on board to head up Health Care reform. You need her good will in order to win, and this is an issue where she can be an effective leader.

2) Use Gore's expertise to deal seriously with environmental affairs, including changing the focus at DOE. (Hillary would also be useful here -- her energy program ideas as set forth in her website are both solid and inventive.)

Obama will surely be running polls to determine whether Hillary will be more of an asset as VP or in some other capacity. I doubt whether she any more than Gore would have any particular interest in a meaningless VP position.

The longer Obama waits to include these two in some major way, the tougher it will be to unite the party in preparation for the GE.

Posted by: V. J. Homer | May 14, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

I said nothing about Ohio and Pennsylvania. West Virginia is insignificant in this election. I also pointed out that Obama could still win the election if he lost Ohio, but not if he lost Pennsylvania (which he won't).

Posted by: P Diddy | May 14, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

A classy way for Obama to avoid the empty suit label would be to start floating some specifics about his purported administration:

1) Get Hillary on board to head up Health Care reform. You need her good will in order to win, and this is an issue where she can be an effective leader.

2) Use Gore's expertise to deal seriously with environmental affairs, including changing the focus at DOE. (Hillary would also be useful here -- her energy program ideas as set forth in her website are both solid and inventive.)

Obama will surely be running polls to determine whether Hillary will be more of an asset as VP or in some other capacity. I doubt whether she any more than Gore would have any particular interest in a meaningless VP position.

The longer Obama waits to include these two in some major way, the tougher it will be to unite the party in preparation for the GE.


Posted by: V. J. Homer | May 14, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

When will Senator Obama achieve the required number of delegates to win the nomination? (for those of you who are a little dense, this is a bit of a trick question)

Posted by: PartyRules | May 14, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

right. the concept that W Va. Ohio, Fla, Michigan and Pa are swing states is totally ridiculous. Ask Pres Kerry and former Pres Gore if Ohio,Fla, W Va or Arkansas are less important oh lets say then like places like Utah, Wyoming, Alabama and Miss, your truly swing states.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 14, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Leichtman, there are as many Clinton supporters being mean to Obama supporters as there are Obama supporters being mean to Clinton supporters. Get off the playground, crying home to mommy stuff and get back to some facts instead of anecdotal conjecture.

After all, if all I did was read your posts, I can go to all my friends right now and cast aspersions on all Clinton supporters.

Posted by: P Diddy | May 14, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

mike: really curious why you are playing the race card, isn't 92% a large enough number for your side to have encouraged against their opponent. And calling your opponents, nothing but a bunch of poor uneducated voters, tell that to my rabbi, post graduate family, and large % of local attorneys who can't stand Sen Obama's dedication to comprehensive tort reform that these folks are nothing but poor and uneducated folks. These are but a small ex of HC supporters in my precinct which also included scores of surgeons and succesful small business people, or as you would call them the uneducated underbelly of society. Another example of his supporters totally insulting their oppent's supporters then expecting them to turn around and support your candidate. Your side really doesn't get it. Months of your supporter's and campaigns personal insults of your opponents is really settling in and solidifying our opposition to your candidate. Keep it up.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 14, 2008 9:40 AM | Report abuse

This saw about West Virginia being a "swing state" is silly.

Posted by: P Diddy | May 14, 2008 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Good point, Mike. I don't think the traditional electoral calculus adds up in this election. South Carolina, Louisiana, and possibly Mississippi are all in play this year, provided Obama can get organized on the ground and drive the African American turnout (which he has proven the ability to do).

http://www.270towin.com/

Start with the 2004 actuals, and then put Colorado, Missouri, Iowa, and Virginia in Obama's column. He can win without Ohio and Florida. Obama could even lose Michigan and Vermont, and still win. I think Mississippi and Louisiana are in play, too, but for the sake of argument let's ignore them.

The people complaining about Obama's "unelectability" aren't acknowledging two things:

1. Obama's appeal is beyond the white, blue collar Democrat and his support among Independents and angry Republicans could tilt the battle his way in a handful of states.
2. The Democratic Party has added 3M+ new voters this election cycle, and 60-65% of them are Obama supporters. They tip the balance in many states.

Posted by: P Diddy | May 14, 2008 9:38 AM | Report abuse

Curious if this would have been the story line if lets say B.O. had won a swing state by lets say 41% last night? It was a total blowout that his campaign should be totally embarrased about, but instead we hear his supporters last night referring to W Virginians as white trash; that message should certainly resonate. What kind of message did he think he was sending to that state when he could spare a mere 5 hours to campaign there and then expects their undying loyalty in the fall. There were reports of Obama robo calls saying even if you are not going to vote for me in W Va send me money so I can come back to you in the fall. Barry's arrogance continues. No sense of humility or humbleness much like the character flaw we all complain about W having. Until I see some real humility from him, as a lifelong Yellow Dog D, I will be on the McCain side. Just don't think that humility is his strong suit(brushing his shoulder, touching the sole of his shoe,giving the finger to his opponent to a roaring crowd, and repeatedly saying I give a really great speech don't I, are just some examples. Have even heard that very sentiment from some of his strongest local supporters. So stay above the voters Barry and keep attending S.F. fundraisers with your billionaire friends at their multimillion dollar Snob Hill villas so we can get in touch with the inner Barry.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 14, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

The first thing Obama has to accept is that Hillary is going to consolidate as much of her core around her to oppose him. She's either trying to get the VP slot or ruin his chances of winning in the general so she can get a shot in 2012. He'll lose the ignorant, poor white Americans who hate black Americans because of this, so he should concentrate on picking up Independents and Republicans who are intelligent enough to realize what a disaster a third Bush term would mean. I think your idea of "Big Rhetoric, Big Ideas" is a good one. He should tell the people specifically what he plans to do to solve major problems. Another good idea would be to explain what he would do to restore our constitution and break up the media empires which are damaging this country immensely.

Posted by: MikeMcNally | May 14, 2008 9:27 AM | Report abuse

HRC's surrogates on all the news shows last night were casting the old "they're all so mean to me" line. The same line they were criticizing Obama for playing after the infamous ABC debate.

They said only she was ready at 3am, yet she remarked how "tired" she was when she lied about Bosnian sniper fire 5 times on 5 separate nights.

They said only she was qualified to be president, yet they offered the VP slot to Obama--a job whose sole qualification is readiness to be president.

They said they paid no heed to economic expert "elitists" on the gas tax holiday, but they would be more than willing to listen to neocon expert "elitists" on foreign policy and "obliterating" Iran.

They complain about playing the gender card, but when it's politically expedient, she's more than willing to cry, feign being attacked unfairly, and hue towards helplessness when reacting to media questioning.

They complain about the vast right-wing conspiracy, but whenever the liberal media dares question her, she complains about a vast left-wing conspiracy (note: if the entire world is out to get you, maybe it's for a pretty good reason).

I cannot wait until these double-talking, lying, cheating misanthropes exit the political stage.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 14, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Harry Haller - How are Obama's words empty promise, while Hillary's ability to "convey a sense" legitimate promise? And oh yes, when it comes to running the country, it IS brain surgery. And I want the doctor, not the plumber.

Posted by: Jim | May 14, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

That was a big win for Hillary last night and the press should report that - the dynamic of the race has shifted -


First, Hillary is in striking distance of the popular vote lead and that is important.


Most importantly, she has demonstated that she can win that state in the fall, and Obama can not - whether you want to make that the headline or not is your choice - it does not change the facts on the ground.


Hillary has gone a long way to proving her case that she can win in November and Obama can not.

That is a superdelegate argument yes, however if these two candidates were both white, that would be the criteria the superdelegates would be looking at. A post-racial superdelegate colorblind would go with Hillary.

.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 14, 2008 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Some great suggestions there. I hope Obama doesn't completely give up on the iconic speech thing... it has got him to where he is, and he needs the faithful to remain inspired.

The mid-east trip is a must. Perhaps a trip to Iraq before the election? That way when McCain talks about the "reality on the ground", Obama can respond that he has been there more recently than McCain.

Finally, he needs to work at a frenetic pace that McCain simply cannot match. It isn't "age-ist" to know that a 72 year old just can't keep up the schedule of a 40-ish year old. Obama will run circles around McCain.

On that note, age will be and should be an issue in the election. The colour of someone's skin doesn't change their decision making ability... but age sure can. My 70 year old Grandpa can't remember where the toilet is. What happens in 3 years to McCain when he starts going crazy?

THEREFORE, Obama should be doing all he can to highlight how sprightly he is. Do pushups, play basketball, work out at the gym... all the stuff McCain can't do coz he's just too old.

Oh... and Chaos45i... you've be spouting this crap for weeks now. Go crawl back under your rock.

Posted by: Boutan | May 14, 2008 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Terry McAuliffe sounds more and more like Baghdad Bob every single day.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 14, 2008 9:21 AM | Report abuse

With all due respect to everyone here objectively I just don't get it.

And seriously everyone.


At this point, Hillary either has or is extremely close to having the votes for the Rules Committee vote on May 31 - that will give her a massive jump in delegates.


It will also place in play a whole amount of additional superdelegates, which I believe few people are thinking about.


Puerto Rico is in a position to place her over the top in Popular Vote. We have all seen the numbers - when the Rules Committee seats at least some delegates from Florida and Michigan, that will put to rest the question of whether to include those two states.


hhhmmm.


With some adjustments - credit Obama with a partial of the uncommitteds in Michigan based on the polling, caucuses, maybe one might include the beauty contest in Washington state instead of an estimate from the caucus.

Hillary just may be ahead in popular vote after all of that.


The question is: to the people who were willing to give it to Obama if he held a small lead in the popular vote, would they be willing to do the same for Hillary ???


I would think not, however it is a question worth posing - why is the popular vote good enough to confirm Obama however when Hillary is ahead it is irrelevant?

What I don't get is this with Hillary winning in the Rules Committee and ahead in the popular vote, the supderdelegates may just say that they want her.

What is telling is that Howard Dean does not want a meeting of superdelegates - he doesnt think it is a good idea if they talk to each other.

This race is much closer than anyone wants to give it credit. Simply the fact that Hillary is within striking distance of the popular vote lead should give people pause and no one should be saying she is finished.

Objectively, I really do not understand it.


State by State November projections we can talk about later - however you know the superdelegates are thinking about those too.


.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 14, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

It's interesting that in the past when Obama has won the press makes a big deal about Hillary not thanking the folks who voted for her, yet when Obama does not even make a concession speech there is nothing in the MSM about it.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | May 14, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

Oh God there he goes again,good old WAPO
Obama Shill Chris trying to make it look
like WAPOs New Messiah Phony Liberal Liar
Loser Barack Hussein Obama has already won
the 2008 Democratic Presidential Nomination
when the truth is Obama Has Not! Hey Chris
put down that jug of Obamajuice and sober
up you bias Pro Obama Shill Phony! NOBAMA!

Posted by: Sherry Kay | May 14, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse

Revisit the Rust Belt:
Obama does not have a problem with "blue collar white Americans" blah blah blah. He has a problem with Appalachians.
Observe:
Map of counties where Obama has won at least 65% of the vote.
Map of counties where Clinton has won at least 65% of the vote.
Looks like hard-working Americans, white Americans, only live in the mountains. Try to tell me that Clinton's policies somehow favor those living in Appalachia and I will call bullsh*t. Sure, Obama could spend some time in Pennsylvania, Ohio, whatever, but he has spent a good time there already and those rural counties are not going to sway their (I'm assuming; prove me wrong) collective preconceived notions of the Muslim, anti-American Barack Hussein Obama. Case in point. Why is unabashed racism so prevalent in the Appalachian mountains? Your guess is as good as mine.

Big Rhetoric, Big Ideas:
Anyone who doesn't know Obama's policies is just being lazy. His big, airy speeches are for those who have taken the time to educate themselves. I mean, it really only takes a few minutes.

Take Five:
Interesting idea. Why not let the individuals decide for themselves whether they're too pooped to continue or they want to bring home the bacon? Otherwise it seems like it'd be ungrateful to those who have helped him come this far.

Posted by: TMo | May 14, 2008 9:05 AM | Report abuse

Enough about having beaten "the best known political brand name " etc. etc. Hillary's negatives were over 50% before this even started. Obama has beaten someone that, whether it's fair or not, the public never particularly liked. McCain is a whole new ball game.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | May 14, 2008 8:56 AM | Report abuse

I'm really ambivalent as to whether Obama should avoid or attack the race issue. Would it be bold, or stupid to hold a mirror up to the American people and get them to examine their unadmitted prejudices? In defense of this approach, racism is considered publicly taboo in much of the country. If the press pointed out that there is likely a strong racist element working against Obama (which there pretty obviously is--the WVA headlines this morning might as well have read "Clinton carries the old, white, racist vote, and claims it is the key to winning in November!")--would Americans distance themselves from being associated with it, or would they be offended?

Posted by: scrapster | May 14, 2008 8:55 AM | Report abuse

'To counter that messaging, Obama should take on big issues -- affirmative action, Social Security, education -- with serious policy fixes that map out a path to addressing these long-standing problems'

That would be silly, CC, and you know it. It's too complicated a message for a campaign, and too divisive. Most Americans don't pay enough attention to public policy to understand what he was talking about.

Obama needs to work instead on the basics, just leting people get to know him, feel comfortable with him--the Ask Obama Tour is a good idea.

And so what if Hillary has the white blue-collar Dem vote? Most of them will vote for the R in the general anyway--who knows how many of these were Limbaugh Dems anyway?

Posted by: drindl | May 14, 2008 8:54 AM | Report abuse

One of the things that this extended primary has shown is that HRC's reputation for divisiveness is well earned.

While it may be a moot point as to whether or not she can win the presidency, I, for one, do not look forward to another 4 or 8 years of a polarized country. We have enough problems on our hands without having to expend all of our intellectual energy on fighting about our differences.

I will vote for her if I must, because a 3rd Bush term is unacceptable, but do not look forward to the constant noise about why or why not we love her or hate her.

Can you imagine listening to Rush's apoplectic diatribe for 8 looooong years if she wins?

Posted by: smartinsen | May 14, 2008 8:53 AM | Report abuse

Considering that the guy and his team have found a way to enter the market with a start-up product, and within 15 months, totally kick the arse of the most established brand-name in their business, the consultants might want to sit back and consider whether they should be offering advice to him, or the other way around.

Look, the "problem" Obama is having with Appalachian and lower-income "tribal" whites could have been, and most likely, WAS predicted by his team a long time ago. Look at the map of Clinton's support at Sullivan's blog, and you see the geographic pattern that extends from PA south and westward through Arkansas and into parts of Texas. These are folks who are rarely, if ever, viewed as being on the cutting edge of American thinking (no offense to them, but the rest of the country isn't looking to low-income rural whites in Arkansas for our leadership in thought or style). AND they're overwhelmingly living in states who are as close to "locks" for the GOP as any in the country. So they're resistant to a younger mixed-race guy of international background and experience - they'd be resistant to him anyway, either because of the color of his skin, the sound of his name, or the fact that he comes to them from Chicago. But their states aren't likely to go Dem in the fall anyway, so who cares?

Meanwhile, there are rural, working-class whites in Wisconsin, Colorado, Missour, Kansas and Minnesota, and other states that WILL be in play who apparently have no problem with Obama. Whether it's the fact that their states are a little more diverse in population or whatever, they looked at the guy and said "yeah, he looks ok to me."

So it could well be that all Obama's gonna need to do is take a few weeks vacation, let Hillary stew in her own bitter juices (where she can think about the fact that she and Bubba just peed away $11 million on a vanity project), and approach the summer campaign season as a chance to get back to what he was doing last summer and fall - introducing himself to more people and talking about our strengths as a people and a culture, and where we can go from here.

Let McCain try to pump up his conservative credentials - 80% of the country is looking at the direction he and his peeps have taken us and saying "this sucks." McCain's fingerprints are all over some of the worst aspects of the Bush administration. Point out those examples, say "hey, do y'all want more of the same?" and go from there.

Posted by: Marcus3 | May 14, 2008 8:48 AM | Report abuse

Since the GOP resembles WV in percent of non-white 5% voters how much of the white vote does a DEM canidate need? 35%?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 14, 2008 8:45 AM | Report abuse

The biggest problem Obama has, is he is not going to have the luxury of focusing on the general election because it appears the Clintons are embarked on a win at all cost statergy. listening to fast Eddie Rendall, the game plan is to try to flip pledged and super delegates. Nothing could be more destructive to the dems chances of beating McCain. But excuse me if I don't shed any tears for the dems dillema. If the dems had put country ahead of party, Bill would had been forced to resign for his malfeasance. You dems get what you deserve for that disgracefull behavior in our history.

Posted by: bhoomes | May 14, 2008 8:44 AM | Report abuse

Angellight and Trisha are sort of asking the same question from different angles. Obama has a problem with Appalachian whites. But he's won the nomination without them, and in no state in the general will Appalachian whites be the contested swing vote.

And, fwiw, Clinton wouldn't have won Appalachia in the general either. Edwards might have been competitive, but Appalachian whites have become as reliably Republican in presidential elections as lowland Southern whites, and fixing that is a longer-term project.

As Angellight is pointing out, the good news for Obama is that there are plenty of working-class whites outside of Appalachia who are much more likely to vote for him or any D. But who wants to talk about the working-class whites in Wyoming or Minnesota or Maine who voted for Obama by healthy margins, or the working-class whites in Montana and South Dakota and Oregon who will vote for him in the weeks ahead? That goes against the cherished narrative, and so tends to be discounted.

Posted by: novamatt | May 14, 2008 8:35 AM | Report abuse

Mississippi Special Election GOES DEM

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST

THREE LONG TERM GOP SEATS GO DOWN

142 Delegates TO Nomination OBAMA

Posted by: Anonymous | May 14, 2008 8:29 AM | Report abuse

I am an Obama voter, and he should ignore ALL of this advice. As a consultant for businesses in dire straits, I have been in his position of working for months on end with no break in sight. My advice to Barack is this: Six hours of sleep EVERY NIGHT, even if the building is burning around you, hit a real sack at 11:45 pm and wake up at 6:00 am. Every other week, sleep until you wake up.

Enforce a similar regimen on your team. Nothing is more important to prevent error than avoiding sleep deprivation; it will stop the gaffes and dropped balls and improve efficiency.

Besides that, your team has won the primary, so trust Berman and Axelrod and Plouffe, do what you have been doing, and they will win the general. You're doing fine, but sometimes you seem tired or irritated and sleep-walk through your stump, and the press jumps you. Get some damn sleep and keep the schedule. 16 hours of good work beats 18 hours of crap. Cut out the carbs because they make us groggy. I've taken meetings at every meal and during my workout, I've even taken calls or read briefs while shaving and getting dressed and on the way into the offices. There is only one rule I know that you seem to be missing: Six hours of uninterrupted sleep every night.

Posted by: Tony C, SA TX | May 14, 2008 8:25 AM | Report abuse

OBAMA adds SUPER (update)

SuperBowl
285 of 795 Obama took LEAD May 12
272 of 795 Clinton
238 Super Remain 189 Elected + 5 WV


Nomination Countdown
142 to 2025 Obama
311 to 2025 Clinton 432 Total Delegate Remain

KY 51 OR 53

Go OBAMA

Posted by: Delegate Math | May 14, 2008 8:24 AM | Report abuse

all of those suggestions are irrelevant right now because obama can't even promote his inevitability as a candidate in this country.

everytime hillary wins a contest, no matter the margins, it's a slap in the face. and no, it's not her fault that obama can't seal the deal; it's his own fault as a weak candidate.

Posted by: trisha | May 14, 2008 8:22 AM | Report abuse

Are there no blue-collar, white-working class people in Iowa, Maryland, Virginia, Vermont, Kansas, Washington, Delaware, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Colorado and the 30+ states that Barack won?

Or, in these 30+ states that Barack won, are there only high-class, surburban people of leisure, college graduates and African-Americans?

And, is that what Someone wants us to believe -- that in the 30+ states Barack has won, that there are no blue-collar, white-working class people in any of those states? I thought that white people were a majority in America, not a minority. I don't think we should allow ourselves to be Fooled Again!

Posted by: Angellight | May 14, 2008 8:20 AM | Report abuse

Sore losers. All of you. Muahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

Posted by: The Oracle | May 14, 2008 8:14 AM | Report abuse

Let me get this correct: you asked a number of political consultants who remained anonymous their views... so we readers have no way to judge the credibility of said consultants, who could be all-time losers in campaigns, especially at the national level. To be honest, a number of these "suggestions" are about as bold and agenda-setting as Bill Clinton's focus on school uniforms in the mid-1990s. Sheesh...

Posted by: Sherman Dorn | May 14, 2008 8:06 AM | Report abuse

Those are all good suggestions. Just from an analytical standpoint, it's interesting how much voters are swayed by the perceived "authenticity" of the candidate, and by "authenticity" we mean the ability to mimic the behaviors of middle-class, middle-brow middle America. No one is a better candidate because he knows what should go on a cheesesteak sandwich, or can throw a baseball well, or knows the price of a gallon of milk. But we like to think that getting that stuff right means the candidate better understands us. It's both exasperating and charming, kind of like middle America itself.

The more substantive suggestions are on the spot too. Managing a candidate's calendar has to be the most difficult part of a campaign. There's just not time for everything, and while you want there to be something out there on each issue that voters care about, you don't want to many big ideas clogging up voters' synapses either.

From an activist standpoint, I sort of trust Obama's team. They did a masterful job plotting a course through the Democratic primaries. The setbacks Obama has encountered have not come from within the campaign, and they've done an okay job of dealing with the externally-imposed setbacks (and gotten better at it). We've only seen the broad outline of what the general campaign will look like, but if Team Obama works as smart and as hard in the general as it did during the primary, McCain has no chance in this year's political climate.

Posted by: novamatt | May 14, 2008 7:57 AM | Report abuse

Obama should do one of his fund raiser things and give all of the money he raises to charity. That way people will see him as a kinder person.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 14, 2008 7:55 AM | Report abuse

FirstMouse, "Ask Barack" is the problem -- he's not an all-knowing seer. He's a first-time Senator, doesn't know much yet. "Listen, Barack" makes more sense.

Posted by: Hannah | May 14, 2008 7:52 AM | Report abuse

Obama needs to cultivate that inevitable image - like he's clearly the nominee and that the only way for him to win in November is for Hillary to drop away so he can focus on McCain.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: matt | May 14, 2008 7:31 AM | Report abuse

Should BHO take up McC's suggestion of jointly held town meetings?

Should BHO keep his word on taking public financing, only, after the convention?
$80M+ is plenty enough to run for 10 weeks, after all. How is "McCain is playing within the system?" No one has irrevocably committed to "blowing the caps" for the GE,
so no one has yet played wit that system.
McC's loan pledge during the primary is irrelevant to the GE.


Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 14, 2008 7:29 AM | Report abuse

Obama has emerged as a spokesmodel (for whom?) with nothing much besides charisma. His strategy depended on bluffing everybody else out of the race. He's bored with the primary, and it shows. No concession speech last night? Above it all. Above most Americans.

Hillary conveys a sense that she knows how to fix things if you give her a chance. Barack just says, vote for me and feel good. In hard times, I want the plumber, not the glamour.

FDR, not Fabio.

Posted by: Harry Haller | May 14, 2008 7:27 AM | Report abuse

Many good ideas here, especially those clustered under revisiting the Rust Belt. Perhaps the notion of Rust Belt is too geopolitically limiting, though. Workers and would-be workers are hurting all over. Pink collar jobs and the women who work them clearly need more attention wherever they may be. Once Obama's nomination is recognized this will be easier, and if Hillary proves magnanimous after primaries end, she can be welcomed to play a constructive role with women as part of the vital healing process.

The "Ask Barack" forums idea seems promising, and this would be a natural for situating in Ohio and Pennsylvania. (The visits to Missouri and Michigan are apt demonstrations of leadership just now.) Lunchtime with workers is another winner. Maybe the Ask Barack forums and lunches with workers could be billed as *listening* opportunities followed by an Obama proposal or proposals that really grab workers' attention and enthusiastic support here and now. (Probably relevant proposals have already been advanced or these are in the pipeline.)

Posted by: FirstMouse | May 14, 2008 7:20 AM | Report abuse

Wow the Obama-haters have come out early. Well, it seems to me Obama just needs to prove he's more energetic and virile than his Republican counter part. Until John McCain releases his health records, the suspicion of whether he is capable of becoming President will linger. Also, the Republicans may want to consider getting rid of the "Grand Old Party" brand. In Mississippi and in Louisiana, its already been proved that 'Old' is not in.

Posted by: Jake D's shadow | May 14, 2008 7:17 AM | Report abuse

Obama is so far left that he has left America along with "GD America" crowd.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 14, 2008 6:52 AM | Report abuse

Obama doesn't get it. If he starts changing his tactics now, it's going to be as artificial and unbelievable as his claims that he didn't know what Wright was saying at the pulpit -- or his claims that he could no more disown Wright than his white granny and his black community.

I think he committed everything he had to winning the nomination, counting on the "anybody but a Republican" vote in November. In the process, he's soured a lot of Democrats who will vote anybody but Obama.

Yes, a change is needed, but smart people have come to realize that all Obama does is talk. He doesn't have the authority or the experience to back it up. And most Americans see that. It doesn't matter what Obama does now. The Democrats will give him the nomination at the cost of losing the general election. One by one, people will find themselves unable to vote for inexperience, rhetoric and political double-speak in these troubled times. Obama will lose the general election, one vote at a time, and through that loss, McCain will win.

Posted by: Lynn | May 14, 2008 6:51 AM | Report abuse

Let's keep it simple. He has been wounded by this primary campaign, not because of his ridiculously narrow win, but because the impression has been left that he is an empty suit, and that the Democrats are nominating another elitist. He either has to embrace the elitism, ala Kennedy, and combine it with a wonk-ish mastery of detail that makes McCain look bad in comparison, or he has to change his personality- not the appearance of who he is, which is an aloof, self-absorbed egotist, but the reality of it. Since the second alternative is probably humanly impossible in such a short amount of time, and he can't "out-McCain" McCain, he better fall bank on wonkery.

The bottom line is that this guy doesn't do well in the first person, only in front of a large crowd. His convention speech will be a sure winner, but after that the "love" will slowly dissipate.

I predict he'll be up on McCain 12 points immediately after the Convention speech, and he will lose the election by 5 points. In a year when Republicans weren't doing so badly, he would have lost by 15 points.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | May 14, 2008 6:50 AM | Report abuse

These are great ideas, exactly the sort of things he should be doing. A friend who attended a community picnic in Fort Wayne (with a few hundred people) felt it was an effective event, and that could be repeated.

I've thought that it would be great if a President Obama would use his formidable communication skills to do some teaching--that is, to talk about health care, for instance, and really explain what the issues are and what his plans are. He has done a pretty good job of treating people like adults, and I'd like to see more of that. I had thought of this as something he might do after he is elected, but it could be part of the campaign too.

And, now that I'm thinking about teaching, it would also be fun to see him talking with some young people about their goals, whatever. I worry a lot about how many kids drop out of high school and would like to know what President Obama would do to try to reduce the dropout rate. Because dropout rates are so much higher in minority communities than in white communities, addressing this issue also has the potential to be both an inspiration to minority kids and families and a Sister Souljah moment for whites.

Finally, yes to the big picture analyses and ideas. What are the challenges associated with our aging population? What are the consequences for the U.S. of the rise of other nations destined to become big powers? What is a realistic assessment of our energy situation, and what are the three most important things to do to address it? Essentially, he might respond to the new Fareed Zakaria book.

Posted by: THS | May 14, 2008 6:37 AM | Report abuse

Considering that he has not won anything yet. I think Barack Obama needs to come clean and explain why he has chosen to allow the agencies EEOC & IDHR to deny Hispanics/Latinos in Illinois the same language and race discriminatoin charges non-Hispanics enjoy as a matter of record.
Chris knows what I'm talking about. There is a legitimate reason why the American people should not want Barack Obama. I have been reporting all over the internet since before Obama decided to even run that it can be verified that IL. U.S. Senator Presidential Candidate Barack after being placed on repeated notice is being complicit in allowing the Illinois Department of Human Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to this date to treat American U.S. Hispanic citizens who reported incidents of race discrimination in the state of Illinois in an unequal, biased, & discriminatory manner by preventing them the same race discrimination charges non-Hispanics enjoy as a matter of record and then covering up their conduct. Despite there being ample time for each to respond, redress, and stop the above mentioned serious form of discrimination nothing ,to date, has been done to fairly & fully address, redress,and stop this still ongoing serious form of discrimination. Inaction ,complicity, & deliberate silence on the part of Obama is responsible for Americans who happen to be Hispanic/latino having their civil rights continuing to be violated in Illinois as it relates to this serious form of discrimination in his state of Illinois and for nothing being done to fully & fairly redress and stop this form of discrimination. This is going on in Illinois as we speak but Barack Obama has never told Hispanic/Latinos he wants to vote for him anything about it! I repeat this is verifiable, ongoing and Barack Obama should address it but does not and you can guess why. Included is a link to just two examples, this is on IDHR's own website in the public domain.

http://www.state.il.us/dhr/Orders/2006/Oct_06/Zuniga,%20M.htm


http://www.state.il.us/dhr/Orders/2008/January/W.T..htm

Posted by: Chaos45i | May 14, 2008 5:52 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company